Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; an Amendment made.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Sutton Road Bridge) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Penicuik Water) Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EAST INDIA STATE RAILWAY (CLERK'S DISMISSAL).

Mr. DOBBIE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a clerk named B. K. Mukerjee, employed in the locomotive workshop of the East Indian State Railway at Lucknow, was discharged on the 30th April, 1934, within a fortnight of organising a conference of the East Indian Railway Workers' Union, which is recognised by the railway administration; and, having regard to the appearance of victimisation in this case, will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I will ask the Government of India to furnish me with any information they may have on the matter.

AGA KHAN.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what reply the Government has given to the notification of the Aga Khan to the Government of India of his desire to possess an estate in India?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to a question asked in the Indian Legislative Assembly, which has been reported in the Press. I have nothing to add to the reply which was given, which was that a confidential communication was received from His Highness the Aga Khan but Government was not in a position to disclose its nature.

Sir A. KNOX: Is there any other prominent supporter of the White Paper policy who has asked for an estate in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not see the relevance of that supplementary question. If it is meant to cast an aspersion on the motives of the Aga Khan, I am sure the whole House will say that it is entirely misplaced.

FOREST SERVICE.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has approved the recent acquiesence of the Government of India in the sale of the Imperial Forest College and Research Institute at Debra Dun; if so., what provision now exists for training men, British or Indians, for the All-India Forest Service, and what provision for forestry research in British-India on scientific and up-to-date lines?

Sir S. HOARE: I have asked the Government of India for a report on this matter. Such information as I have on the subject seems to imply that the buildings to be diverted from Forestry purposes are those of the old College and Research Institute, and I have no reasons to suppose that the present facilities for research will in any way be affected.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that expert opinion is strongly in favour of a uniform
system of training for Indian forestry officers, that the Government of India have spent nearly £900,000 on this Forestry Institute, which has been described by experts as the best in the world, and that it has also been held by experts that it is impossible to carry on forestry research successfully in isolation?

Sir S. HOARE: I shall certainly take note of what my Noble Friend has said, but I think her observations would be more relevant on a discussion of the Joint Select Committee's report than in a supplementary question.

TRANSFERRED TERRITORY.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the past the principle has been accepted by the Government of India that, in view of the reluctance shown by many Indian citizens of British India to be transferred to the jurisdiction of various Indian states, no such transfer should be made without their consent, even when an equivalent in area and population was offered in exchange; and why this principle is departed from in the case of the thousands of British Anglo-Indian and Indian subjects in the civil and military station of Bangalore, whom it is proposed to transfer to the jurisdiction of Mysore, without any equivalent exchange, and in spite of the memorandum of the Bangalore Trades Association of February last, expressing grave anxiety in regard to the effects of retrocession on education, hospitals, municipal administration, the value of property, and the general fabric of trade in the station?

Sir S. HOARE: The principle stated is generally recognised as applying when it is a question of transferring British territory with its inhabitants to an Indian State. As regards the second part of the question, no definite decision has yet been taken as to whether any portion of the Assigned Tract of Bangalore shall be retroceded to Mysore. But I would remind the Noble Lady that in any case the territory in question is not British, but is a part of the State of Mysore.

MEETING, CALCUTTA (ARRESTS).


            Mr. BUCHANAN
            (for Mr. MAXTON)
          : 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a
meeting arranged by the League against Gandhism at the Albert Hall, Calcutta, on 14th July was declared unlawful; that on 18th July 15 persons were arrested in Calcutta, including the general secretary of the East India Railway Workers' Union; and whether he will state the reason for declaring the meeting unlawful and the nature of the offence with which the persons arrested have been charged?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I regret that I have no information.

TEXTILE MILLS, BOMBAY (DISPUTE).

Mr. BUCHANAN (forMr. MAXTON): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement regarding the present position of the textile workers in India; whether the millowners of Bombay have agreed to the demands of the workers; what arrangements are proposed regarding the payment of dear-food allowance; whether there is now a general resumption of work in all the mills in Bombay; what is the position in other textile towns; the number of trade union leaders arrested in connection with the strike in Bombay and in other towns; and whether he is satisfied that economic grievances rather than Communist propaganda were at the bottom of the general strike?

Mr. BUTLER: Work has been resumed in all the towns in which disputes recently occurred in textile mills except in Nagpur, where no settlement has been reported in respect of the Empress Mills. The workers' list of demands, which are of a very far reaching kind, has not been agreed to. But in Bombay, the Mill-Owners Association are reported to be working on a scheme for a uniform dear-food allowance and have also been considering the question of standardising wages. The Government of Bombay have received and are now considering the report of the Bombay Labour Office on wages and unemployment in the Bombay textile industry. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, 28 leaders were arrested and detained during the strike in Bombay and five in Nagpur. While not denying that economic grievances exist among the workers, at any rate in Bombay, I think it is fully established that Communist leadership was largely responsible for what has happened.

ANGLO-SPANISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED.

Captain CAZALET: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid, on 19th April, 1933, with regard to the sums, equivalent to over £1,500,000, due in respect of construction work financed by a British company, the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company, Limited; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any further steps in this matter?


            The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS
            (Sir John Simon)
          : His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid has called the attention of the Spanish Government on more than one occasion to the interest of the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company in the sums due from that Government to the Santander Mediterraneo Railway Company. In the meantime I am informed that judgments have been obtained by the railway company in the competent Spanish courts confirming the validity of their claims. In view of the fact that the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company hold 98 per cent. of the entire share issue of the railway company, add, by reason of the retention of the amounts due to the.latter, have incurred serious financial difficulties, further representations have been made to the Spanish Government and His Majesty's Government intend to press the matter.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that this debt was acknowledged and the money promised by the Spanish Government two or three years ago, and that they have not taken any active steps to pay it up to date?

Sir J. SIMON: It is certainly the case that the money has not been paid. I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that I understand a competent Spanish court has confirmed the validity of the claim

TURKEY (FIRING ON BRITISH NAVAL BOAT).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to
make a full statement of the circumstances in which British officers were fired on by Turkish soldiers and a British officer killed?

Sir J. SIMON: The further information which has been received since I replied to my hon. Friend's question on the 17th July indicates that this tragic occurrence was the result of a lamentable misunderstanding. The skiff in which the officers approached close to the Turkish coast was flying no flag and the officers were not in uniform. According to the statement of the Turkish Government, the Turkish coastal patrols have strict orders to summon any suspect craft to be questioned, and in the present case beckoned to the boat to approach.
There is reason to think that the signal was misunderstood; at any rate, when the skiff moved away the Turkish guard repeatedly fired with the lamentable result that Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson was killed and fell into the water. Lieutenant Maunsell was slightly wounded. Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson's body has not yet been recovered.
The Turkish Ambassador, on instructions from his Government, has expressed his Government's very sincere regret that this tragic misunderstanding should have occurred, and the Turkish Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador that they are deeply distressed at the occurrence. A funeral ceremony was held on Saturday in Turkish territorial waters, at which there were present His Majesty's Ship "Queen Elizabeth," flying the flag of the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, His Majesty's Ship "London," flying the flag of the Rear Admiral commanding the First Cruiser Squadron, and His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire," in which Surgeon-Lieutenant Robinson was serving.
By order of the Turkish Government a Turkish destroyer also took part and cast a wreath into the sea with an inscription expressing the sympathy and regret of the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government have also spontaneously expressed their desire to pay a compassionate grant to the relatives of the deceased officer.

FINLAND (MOTOR-SHIP "OMAR" ARREST).

Brigadier-General NATION: 12.
asked the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what has been the outcome of the representations made by him to the Finnish Government regarding the arrest of the motor-ship "Omar" and the long delay in dealing with the question of its release?

Sir J. SIMON: The Finnish Government were informed on the 25th June that the judicial proceedings in this case appeared to have been unreasonably delayed, and that, if a claim for damages for wrongful detention under the terms of the Liquor Smuggling Convention were ultimately put forward, the delay would naturally increase the amount claimed. His Majesty's Minister at Helsingfors is following the matter, and no further action is contemplated at the moment.

Brigadier-General NATION: Could my right hon. Friend give some indication of the date when this ship will be released?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say at the moment. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question on the Paper.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TREATMENT OF PRISONERS).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a favourable response to the draft rules for the treatment of prisoners circulated by the League of Nations to States members of the League; and whether the British delegation to the League will be authorised to propose confirmation of these draft rules at the forthcoming assembly of the League?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on the 30th May last. As regards the second part, the position is that the Fifth Committee of the forthcoming assembly will have before it a report by the Secretary-General of the League giving the views of the various Governments on this subject. Until that report is received it is
not possible to decide what action shall be taken by the British delegation, but the House has already been informed that the revised rules are already applied in practice in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Sir A. KNOX: 14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as the imports of eggs from the following countries in the first six months of 1934 showed an increase as compared with imports in 1933, he will recommend adequate protection for the home industry, either by tariff, or quota, or both: Denmark, Finland, Poland, Netherlands, Turkey, China, Brazil, and Chile?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As I have already stated, the first six months of 1934 include a period outside the six months covered by the arrangement proposed by His Majesty's Government for a standstill in imports of eggs in shell. This period of six months began on 15th March, 1934, and since that date the total imports of eggs show no increase as compared with 1933 and indeed to 11th July show a decrease of the order of 7 per cent. The action to be taken to regulate imports after 14th September next, when the six months come to an end, is now under consideration.

Sir A. KNOX: Does my right hon. Friend know the very great anxiety among home poultry producers in this country, and would it not be better to impose a quota now instead of waiting for the necessity to give a subsidy from the taxpayers' money?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think anxiety would be increased by a question such as my hon. and gallant Friend has asked, suggesting that there has been an increase since the Government took action, when in fact there has been no increase.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does my right hon. Friends' statement apply to all the countries mentioned? Has not the supply from Turkey increased during the last three months?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was careful to say that the total imports are so much decreased, and that is what concerns the market in this country.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that, while the total quantity of imports of eggs in shell has decreased, the average price at which these quantities have come in, compared with last year and the year before, has decreased very much more, and that the question of price is really much more important that the question of quantity?

Mr. ELLIOT: That does not arise from the original question. I was asked about the quantities, and they do not show an increase.

Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the protection given to the industry at present is sufficient?

PRICES AND WAGES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, taking 1925 as the base year for agricultural wages and prices, what would be the present agricultural wage if wages had declined to the same extent as agricultural prices; and what has been the decline in the number of agricultural land workers in Great Britain between the first recorded and latest available date?

Mr. ELLIOT: If agricultural wages had been governed solely by the movement of the prices of agricultural products since 1925, the average of the weekly minimum wages for ordinary adult workers in England and Wales would have been 23s. 5d. in June last. The total number of agricultural workers in Great Britain in 1921, the first year for which comparable returns on an annual basis are available, was 996,081, the corresponding figure for 1925 being 925,400 and for 1933, 827,400.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does not that show that farmers are unable to employ a sufficiency of labourers at the present agricultural prices?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think it shows the great desirability of having a more remunerative level of prices than that at present existing.

POULTRY COMMISSION.

Captain HEILGERS: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the date when he expects to receive the Report of the Poultry Commission?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to a similar ques-
tion by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on 12th July, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.

Captain HEILGERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Poultry Commission has abandoned the idea of an interim report on the question of eggs?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not say without notice.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the Poultry Commission sitting regularly or only occasionally?

Mr. ELLIOT: As one would expect from a body which is considering such a problem, it is, I understand, sitting practically continuously.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Are they what we call in Scotland "clocking hens"?

MILK MARKETING BOARD (HIGH COURT DECISION).

Mr. T. SMITH(for Mr. THORNE): 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information to give to the House about the steps he proposes to take in view of the decision given in the King's Bench Division in connection with the illegality of the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have just received a copy of the Judgment referred to, but I have not yet had an opportunity of considering whether it calls for any action on my part.

OFFICE OF WORKS (OBJECTS OF ART).

Mr. BURNETT: 20.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether there are in the possession of his Department any artistic items of bronze or stone statuary by British artists or any garden decorations for which no location has yet been found?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There are no such articles in my Department's possession.

HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

Mr. CAPORN: 25.
asked the Attorney-General the number of actions now awaiting trial in each of the ordinary
lists of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; how many of these actions were set down for trial prior to the 29th May, the 10th April, and the 15th January, 1934, respectively; whether he is aware that the long delay in the trial of the civil actions causes hardship and extra expense to many poor litigants; and whether it is proposed to increase the number of judges so as to secure that civil actions are disposed of during the term succeeding that on which they are set down for trial?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The answer to the first part of the question is in the form of a statistical table which, with my hon. and learned Friend's consent, I will circulate

Number of Actions awaiting trial on 20th July, 1934.


—
Set down prior to 15th January, 1934.
Set down prior to 10th April, 1934.
Set down prior to 29th May, 1934.
Total awaiting trial on 20th July, 1934.


A.
B.
C.
D.
E.


Ordinary List—






Special Juries
28
94
124
167


Common Juries
8
66
102
140


Non Juries
10
179
311
453


New Procedure List
1
1
5
141


Commercial List
2
7
13
40


Set down under Order 14 Rule 8a
—
—
—
32



49
347
555
973


Notes.—C includes B.


D includes C.


Stayed Cases not included.

in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am aware that long delay in the trial of civil actions may in certain cases have the effect described by my hon. Friend, but before any decision to increase the number of judges could be effective there are other problems of accommodation, staffing and organisation which must be solved. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has these problems under consideration.

Mr. CAPORN: Is it the fact that in the case of an action set down for trial by a special jury, at least 12 months must elapse before it can possibly be tried at the present time?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I could not answer without notice.

Following is the statistical table:

HYDE PARK.

Mr. BURNETT: 21.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that considerable areas at the north-east end of Hyde Park behind the orators' rostra have long been denuded of turf; and whether he will cause these and any other worn-out surfaces in Hyde Park to be resown or returfed during the autumn?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am, of course, aware of the condition of this part of the park, which is the result of the uses to which it is put and to the exceptionally dry weather. Each year the worn portions of the park are resown at the appropriate season.

Mr. BURNETT: Has not this part of the park been bare of grass for a very long time?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It all gets worn every summer to a certain extent, and this part of Hyde Park is used for all kinds of public meetings and large concourses of people gather there.

Mr. BURNETT: But is it not the case that the part of the park which is used for public meetings is some distance behind this portion and that there has been no sign of grass for a long time on the part to which I refer?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman arranged to have that part of the park laid out with crazy paving?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (CARTRIDGE CASES).

Mr. DIXEY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made a full inquiry into the importation of foreign cartridges into this country; and, if so, is he satisfied that no infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act has occurred

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will institute proceedings against the persons who have failed to comply with Section 1 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, by offering for sale certain imported goods hearing the name of a British firm, but not bearing any indication of origin, namely, cartridge cases which, though
filled since importation, have not undergone since importation any treatment or process which has resulted in a substantial change in their character as cartridge cases?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My right bon. Friend will, of course, be glad to consider any instance of an alleged offence against the Merchandise Marks Acts that my hon. Friends may bring to his notice. He is, however, advised that the practice which they have in mind is not an offence against Section 1 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, since the name of the British trader is applied to the cartridge as a whole which cannot be regarded as "imported goods" within the meaning of the section.

Mr. DIXEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it might be advisable to remedy this defect in the Merchandise Marks Act?

Dr. BURGIN: That, of course, is a very wide question. It would affect every article which is an ingredient in the making-up of some other article and that is a matter which would require very careful consideration to ensure that it did not entail more disadvantages than advantages. At present, a raw material used in the making-up of a manufactured article can be imported from abroad, converted into something else, and the ultimate manufactured article can be described as British. It would be a very big matter to alter the Merchandise Marks Act in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that cartridge cases, which happen to be manufactured near my constituency, do not really constitute a raw material; that a great many manufacturing processes go to producing them, and a great many British workpeople are employed on them; and will he bear in mind the employment factor and its value to the country?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. PIKE: Would the reply of the hon. Gentleman be altered at all if evidence were brought to his notice that the cartridge cases also contained explosive caps?

Dr. BURGIN: I should consider every fact which is brought to my notice, but that fact has not been brought to my notice so far.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does the hon Gentleman consider that the cartridge on being loaded is thereby converted into a different article? Is that what he implies?

Dr. BURGIN: I am stating the obvious fact, that there is all the difference in the world between an empty cartridge case and the full cartridge, in a condition ready to be shot off.

Mr. DIXEY: If representations are made to him upon the matter, will the hon. Gentleman consider the whole question?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the actual case which is the cartridge, or the contents?

IMPORTS.

Mr. WISE: 30 and 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the imports of electrical goods during the first six monts of 1934 reached a value of £1,313,923, as compared with £896,501 in the corresponding period of 1933, an increase of 46.5 per cent.; and whether he will make inquiries as to the effect of this increased importation on employment in the industry;
(2)whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the case of hardware, machinery, typewriters, cotton yarns, undergarments, cotton underwear, tissue paper, furniture and cabinet-ware, and builders' woodwork the imports are more than 50 per cent. Higher in the January-June period of 1934 than they were in the January-June period of 1933; and whether he will take steps to investigate the cause of this increase in imports and the effect on the emloyment situation in those industries?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increase in imports to which my hon. Friend refers. Owing to differences of classification, statistics, but where comparable figures are available for the trades referred to by my hon. Friend there have been substantial declines in unemploy-
ment since last year. As regards the cause of the increase in imports, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on 28th March.

Mr. WISE: As this Government were returned to correct an adverse balance of trade, and as the country appears to be heading for a situation exactly similar to that of 1931, ought not some more definite action to be promised by the hon. Gentleman?

Dr. BURGIN: I think we want to be very careful to see that goods imported for the purpose of being processed and converted into something else in British factories are not arbitrarily reduced in volume.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what process a typewriter undergoes after it has been imported?

Dr. BURGIN: Very often it is assembled.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the change in the volume of retained imports of maim-factures in the first half of this year as compared with the first half of last year, including non-ferrous metals and petroleum products and excluding non-ferrous metals and petroleum products, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: Calculations of the volume of our overseas trade during the second quarter and the first six months of this year are now being made, and the usual quarterly article will be published in the Board of Trade Journal on Thursday next. The additional information required by my hon. Friend is being prepared, and I will send it to him as soon as possible.

HOLLAND (NEGOTIATIONS).

36. Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the position of the negotiations for a trade agreement with Holland?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Exchange of Notes dated 20th July which has been issued as Command Paper 4662.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Will the hon. Gentleman give an under-
taking that agricultural matters will not be used as bargaining pawns in any negotiations?

Dr. BURGIN: It would be improper to give any undertaking of the kind suggested. I can certainly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in any commercial negotiations the interest of all industries and all parties will be carefully borne in mind.

AUSTRALIA.

Mr. LAMBERT: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in communication with the Australian Government with regard to their prospective treatment of British goods in the event of a quantitative regulation of Australian meat imports being adopted by Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I assume that my right hon. Friend has in mind paragraphs which have appeared in the Press attributing statements on this subject to a Commonwealth Minister. I understand that the Minister in question issued in the Australian Press of the 21st July an emphatic denial.

COTTON IMPORTS.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Sir WILFRID SUGDEN): 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of cotton yarns have risen by 69.6 per cent. in the first six months of 1934 as compared with the corresponding period of 1933, and that the imports amount to 1,660,834 lbs. as against 979,261 lbs.; and whether he is prepared to take any action, in view of the widespread unemployment in Lancashire?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the increased imports to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hartland) on the 1st May.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Sir W. SUGDEN): 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of cotton underwear in volume have increased by 92.5 per cent. in the first six months of 1934 as compared with the first six months of 1933; whether he will
state the source of these increased imports; and whether he proposes to take any steps to reduce them?

Dr. BURGIN: The increased imports referred to by my hon. Friend came mainly from Japan. Any question of an increased duty on these goods is a matter in the first instance for the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If the trades concerned were to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and if the committee were to consider that their representations required action, is there any machinery whereby effective action could be taken during the Recess?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a hypothetical question, but I should imagine that the answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

CANCER OF THE LUNG.

Mr. CLARRY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether His Department have any evidence that cancer of the lung may be caused by dust from tarred roads; and if there are any known fatal eases of lung cancer attributable to this cause?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is advised that a relation between the inhalation of dust from tarred roads and cancer of the lung has not been established, and it is, therefore, not possible to say whether any deaths from this disease can be attributed to this cause.

Mr. CLARRY: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that any appreciable quantity of dust can be obtained from a properly tarred road?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is a matter for the Minister of Transport.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAE.L SAMUEL: Has my hon. Friend yet got any records to give any information why there is this great increase in the number of recorded cases of cancer of the lung?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should not put it as high as that. The percentage of cases of cancer of the lung is very small.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of deaths from cancer of the respiratory
organs is only 90 per million, as compared with 1,500 altogether from cancer generally, that this so-called statement was only a chance suggestion, not a statement, by a distinguished layman with no medical qualifications, and that it is considered by medical opinion unwarranted?

RIVER POLLUTION (BRISTOL CHANNEL).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will authorise an inquiry into the pollution of the rivers flowing into the Bristol Channel; whether he will require local authorities to take joint action to avoid the discharge of works effluents, drainage, and sewage outfalls into the streams; and whether he will consider recommending joint schemes for the cleansing of all such sources of pollution by means of filtration, chemical treatment, or similar measures?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member will state what particular rivers he has in mind, the matter will be given further consideration. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to entertain applications for joint action by local authorities and county councils for the prevention of pollution in rivers.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention not been called to the filthy condition of all the rivers in the industrial area in South Wales, and can' he not suggest something by which joint action can be taken by all the local authorities in the district?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would discuss this matter with my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour the present debt of the Unemployment Fund, and also the present assets of the fund which have not been used for the reduction of debt?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the, MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The funded debt of the Unemployment Fund is £105,780,000. After allowing for the accrued charge for debt services under Section 18 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, the fund has in hand a sum of approximately £7,000,000.

IRISH IMMIGRANTS (MERSEYSIDE).

Wing-Commander JAMES: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the facts disclosed by the recent social survey of Merseyside that Irish immigration to Merseyside is at the rate of about 6,000 a year, and that these immigrants are swelling the ranks of casual labour and of those in receipt of public assistance, he has taken any steps to check this influx, or what steps the Government have in contemplation?

Mr. HUDSON: The figure which the hon. and gallant Member quotes appears to be an estimate, based on information not derived from official United Kingdom sources, of the net passenger traffic for the years 1927–29 between Ireland and the port of Liverpool, with some allowance made for persons from Ireland proceeding overseas via Liverpool. The report makes it clear that the figure does not purport to represent the number of immigrants from Ireland who settle on Merseyside. In this connection, the census reports show that, both in Liverpool and in Great Britain as a whole, there were fewer Irish-born persons in 1931 than in 1921. There is no power to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In view of the desire of Mr. de Valera that Southern Ireland should be a self-contained entity, will representations be made to him for the return of these persons to Southern Ireland, or else that he should reciprocate with regard to the large unemployment of ex-service men in Southern Ireland?

GOOD INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION RECORDS.

Mr. DORAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider taking steps in the near future to grant to those who have continuously paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund without drawing any benefit a rebate of their accumulated contributions?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. This method has been tried in the past and abandoned. The preferable method appears to be to give increased benefit rights to those with relatively good contribution records, as in done in the Unemployment Insurance Act recently passed.

TRAINING AND RECONDITIONING CENTRES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 45.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of training and reconditioning centres in the Wales Division and in the United Kingdom; the number of persons in each of the two areas who have been passed through such centres in the last six months; and the number of such centres in contemplation for the next year?

Mr. HUDSON: The total number of these centres for men of 18 years of age or over is 37, of which five are in Wales and two others are on the Welsh border and reserved for Welshmen. The number of men who completed their courses during the six months ending 28th June was 7,578, of whom about 1,600 were Welshmen. Only a small number of these passed through the Welsh centres, none of which has yet been open for any length of time. The provision to be made for next year is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 46 and 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that on the 19th October, 1933, Mr. Pedro Carrasco, blacksmith in the employ of the Gibraltar Gas Company, was killed in an explosion, and that the amount of compensation paid to his widow was; and if he will take some steps to improve the law of workmen's compensation in the colony?
(2) whether he, is aware that Mr. Alfred Sheriff, an employé of the city council of Gibraltar, met with an accident whilst at work which necessitated the amputation of a leg; that the only compensation which he could legally claim was the sum of £18 1s. 8d.; that the city council made an ex gratia payment of a small pension and addressed a communication to the Governor raising the whole question of compensation for workmen; and whether he will now take steps to institute a further inquiry into the question of workmen's compensation and employers' liability in Gibraltar?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no information on either of the two cases referred to by the hon. Member, but I am asking the Governor for his
observations in the matter. The hon. Member will recollect that, in answer to a question which he asked on the 6th June, I made a full statement on the question of workmen's compensation in Gibraltar.

Mr. MACLEAN: As that statement was wholly unsatisfactory, and as, the conditions under which compensation is paid still remain, will the right hon. Gentleman not go into the matter further, since the city council itself has now made a request to the Governor?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not had anything, but, if I had from the Governor a report and a recommendation from the city council on the subject, I should naturally give the most careful consideration to it and afford the city council an opportunity to make observations thereon.

Mr. MACLEAN: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the dissatisfaction that arises owing to the fact that when dockyard workmen go out from this country and suffer an injury, they come under workmen's compensation according to the dockyard rates for this country, and, if anyone is injured there in practically the same work, he comes under the state of compensation paid in Gibraltar?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe the position is that a very large number of people are either direct employés of His Majesty's Government in the dockyard or municipal employés. The dockyard people, if I remember aright, are covered by a Treasury Warrant, and the other people by a somewhat similar arrangement, which leaves very few people to whom no workmen's compensation applies.

Mr. PIKE: Can my right hon. Friend say if these grievances existed when the Socialist party were in power?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, if they are grievances. I think we are carrying on exactly the same system, both municipally and nationally, that has been the practice for years.

COLONIAL HOSPITAL (MILK CONTRACT).

Mr. MACLEAN: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the contractors for the supply of milk to the Colonial Hospital at
Gibraltar are Spanish refugees; that the firm concerned have been convicted for supplying adulterated milk to the institution; and that the contract is still in force in spite of the comments of the judge who tried the case; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such contracts shall in future be given to reputable business houses established in the Colonies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information about this case, but I will make inquiry of the Governor.

EDUCATION (TEACHERS' PENSIONS).

Major PROCTER: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that a teacher's pension is calculated on the basis of the average salary for the last five years of pensionable service, the incidence of the 10 per cent. salary cut will not operate for pension purposes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotharn): My Noble Friend would draw attention to the answer given to the hon. Member for Fairfield (Mr. Brocklebank) on the 12th July, of which he is sending his hon. Friend a copy.

BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS' PROMOTION).

Lieut.-Colonel CRUDDAS: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is in a position to state what steps are being taken to remedy the serious block in the promotion of officers at present existing in the Infantry of the Line as well as in other branches of the Army?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): This question, so far as it affects officers of the Infantry of the Line, has been examined by a committee of which my right hon. Friend Lord Stanhope, a former Under-Secretary of State, was chairman; and as a result certain exceptional measures have been decided upon. The most important of these measures are as follow:
Promotions have been made to the ranks of major-general, lieut.-general and general, in the place of the general officers who have been permitted to retire prematurely. Their vacancies in the establishment of general officers had remained unfilled pending the dates when they would have been retired on completing three years non-employment, or have come within two years of the age limit for compulsory retirement or have died, whichever would have been the earlier. Certain reductions in the establishments of general officers will, however, be effected over a period of time, but the net result at the moment is to make some seven promotions in these ranks at once. There will be a consequential and increasing number of promotions throughout the lower ranks.
A number of officers of the rank of major or below, whose commissions bear a date before 1st January, 1919, will be invited to retire voluntarily with special terms as regards retired pay or retiring gratuities. If sufficient volunteers are not forthcoming, it may be necessary to select officers for compulsory retirement with the same special terms.
It is further proposed to exercise a greater degree of selection as regards the promotion of officers from major to lieut.-colonel. Majors will not be allowed to continue serving beyond three years in that rank unless they are considered fit to assume command, provided that no such officer will be placed on half-pay until he has attained the age of 45.
The position as regards promotion in certain arms other than Infantry of the Line is also being examined, but I am not in a position at present to state whether any special steps will be necessary in their case.

Brigadier-General NATION: May I ask whether the establishment of full colonel is to be altered and whether the length of period during which a full colonel can remain on half-pay will be changed?

Mr. HACKING: I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is rather involved, and, if he is not satisfied with any point, perhaps he will put down a question.

Brigadier-General NATION: My hon. Friend has not mentioned colonels in his statement. He spoke of general officers, but colonels are on a separate basis.

Mr. HACKING: I said there would be promotions from majors to commands, and I also spoke of more vacancies so far as the higher commands were concerned. There is, therefore, a better chance of promotion from colonel to general.

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that certain officers who ranked before 1919 are being asked to retire and are being offered special gratuities and pensions, will anything appear on the Estimates for this purpose, and will the alteration of any warrant be required?

Mr. HACKING: Any change that requires a bigger grant will appear on the Estimates.

Mr. PALING: Will the policy of special gratuities to officers who retire be carried forward to the workers?

PUBLIC MEETINGS (PRESERVATION OF ORDER).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet consulted with the leaders of the opposition parties as to measures for securing order at public meetings.


            The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT
            (Sir John Gilmour)
          : I hope to discuss the different aspects of this problem with the leaders of the Opposition Parties before the House adjourns for the summer.

CODEX SINAITICUS.

Mr. TINKER: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a date has been agreed upon with the British Museum when the subscription list to the cost of the Bible known as the Codex Sinaiticus will close; and can he say what will be the estimated amount the Treasury will have to find.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): No date has been fixed for closing the subscription list, and subscriptions are still being received. In regard to the second part of the question, a Supplementary Estimate for £41,440 has been presented to Parliament. The final charge on public funds will be less than this amount, but
it is not possible at this date to estimate by how much.

Mr. TINKER: Shall we have a chance of discussing this Supplementary Estimate We have not yet had an opportunity, and I understand that we are not likely to get one. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).

Mr. GEORGE HALL (for Mr. JOHN WILMOT): 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position regarding the embargo on the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay; and whether all the member States of the League of Nations are loyally co-operating in enforcing the embargo?

Sir J. SIMON: So far as I am aware, the only Governments who have up to the present been actively preventing the supply of arms to the belligerents have been His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the United States Government, the Danish Government, the Dutch Government and the Swiss Government. I have, however, just learned with great satisfaction that the Italian Government have now informed the President of the Committee of the Council of the League of Nations that they will enact the necessary measures to prevent the export of war material destined for Bolivia and Paraguay from Italian territory. There is now reason to hope that all the other 'Governments which have accepted the League proposal in principle will take the necessary steps without delay.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the League that they should go further and propose an economic boycott of both these States unless they cease fighting?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that the practical thing to do is to take advantage of the opportunity which now offers itself and to make effective the embargo for which we have worked so long.

ROMBALDS MOOR, YORKSHIRE (PUBLIC ACCESS).

Mr. REA (for Mr. MALLALIEU): 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether
he has any further statement to make as to the proposed order limiting the right of the public to access to Rombalds Moor, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the right to lodge objections to it; and whether, in view of misunderstandings which have arisen, he will ensure that objectors have adequate time to prepare and lodge their objections?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of correcting a misstatement in my reply to the question which he put to me on the 12th July. The time specified for objections to the proposed order is three weeks from the latest date of publication of the notice of the order and such period expire to-day. Numbers objections to the proposed order have now been received, and a public inquiry will accordingly be held in the locality. Due notice of such inquiry will be given to all the objectors, and adequate time allowed for the preparation of their case. Any further objections presented in the meantime will be duly considered.

POST OFFICE (NON-DELIVERY OF LETTERS, GERMANY).

Mr. PETHERICK: 19.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the non-delivery of letters addressed from the United Kingdom to British subjects staying in Germany; the reason for it; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second and third parts do not therefore arise.

ROMFORD COUNTY COURT.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 26.
asked the Attorney-General for what reasons the Romford County Court is being closed down in September and being transferred to Ilford, as Ilford is a subsidiary court to Romford?

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The present court buildings at Romford and at Ilford are inconvenient both for the court sittings and for the offices of the staff. Concentration in a new central building will result in improved efficiency and in economy.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the rapid growth of the Romford district; and if new accommodation is being erected, will it be possible to place the new county court in Romford owing to the increase in fares and the distance in which litigants will be involved if it is placed in Ilford?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If those questions are not taken into consideration, I will take care that they are.

WATER SUPPLY, HIGH WYCOMBE.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any information to the House about a private contractor buying water from the High Wycombe, Bucks, Water Company and selling it to the householders; if he can state what the contractor paid per 1,000 gallons and the charge made to the householder for one gallon; and whether the High Wycombe Council are allowed by the water company to distribute water free to the householders?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There is no company of this name. The town council supplies water in High Wycombe. My right hon. Friend is not aware of the sale by a contractor of water purchased from the council. He is informed that one householder purchased water from the council at ls. 5d. the 1,000 gallons and arranged with a contractor for its cartage to her premises, that earlier the premises in quest-ion could have been connected with the mains had this been desired, and that connection will be facilitated by an extension of mains shortly to be carried out. The town council also sells water to the rural district council who pay a contractor for its distribution: the rural council are now carrying out a scheme.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE, COLNE).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received a final report from the general inspector of the district regarding the action of the Colne Town Council in evicting people from houses in the Windybany area of the Colne slum-
clearance scheme without providing alternative accommodation; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The general inspector continues to keep my right hon. Friend in touch with and to inform him of the proceedings of the council. The council is the responsible authority and my right hon. Friend does not contemplate further action.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (WIDOWS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange to collect information showing the number of widows who lose pensions owing to their husbands being short of four or fewer stamps in the required total of 104, with the object of enabling him to say whether legislation can be usefully introduced to help these women?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The requirement of the payment of a minimum number of contributions is an essential feature of all schemes of national insurance, and, whatever number is fixed as the minimum, cases are bound to 'arise in which the number of contributions just falls short of the requirement. My hon. Friend no doubt appreciates that the pensions scheme in question confers a right to a pension for life on the widow, with allowances for children, in return for 104 contributions, which represent less than eight weeks' pension at the minimum rate.

WARRINGTON PRODUCTS WORKS, LONGFORD (ACCIDENT).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 52.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from one of his inspectors in connection with the death of a man who was electrocuted at the Warrington Products Works, Longford; and whether the plant in question was in any way defective?

Sir J GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I have received a preliminary report. I understand that the coroner's inquest has not

yet been completed, and I regret that I am unable for the present to make any statement.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) ACT.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN (for Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT): 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the names of those licensing districts which, subsequent to the passing of the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Act, have extended the hours of sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to eight and a-half?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information asked for is riot available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make on business, and also whether he can say what Orders will be taken to-day?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock rule is being asked for in order to secure the first two Orders. We propose to take also Nos. 3 and 4, both of which are formal but are exempted business.
On Wednesday the Ministry of Labour Vote will be put down.
I regret that I am not yet able to announce the business for Thursday.
On Friday, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the position of trade will be debated.
As a result of conversations which have taken place through the usual channels, it has been agreed to treat the remaining stages of the Appropriation Bill on Monday next as formal and to proceed to consider the Opposition Motion of Censure relating to armaments.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided; Ayes, 211; Noes, 44.

Division No. 342.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyts, Liout.-colonel
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ba[...]lle, Sir Adrian W. M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W..J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoftray K.(Wverh'pt'n,Blliton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pike, Cecll F.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lleut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bernays, Robert
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ra[...]kes, Henry V. A. M.


Bllndell, James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Boulton, W. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hammertley, Samuel S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartland, George A.
Rankin, Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Ernest (Le[...]th)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reld, David D. (County Down)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Remer, John R.


Burgln, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burnett, John George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ross, Ronald D.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynomouth)


Castlereagh, viscount
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salmon, sir Isidore


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ker, J. Campbell
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cooks, Douglas
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cooper, A. Duff
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leckle, J. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Critchlcy, Brig.-General A. C.
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crooke, J. Smedley
Levy, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cross, R. H.
Lister, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Somerset, Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somervllle, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davison, sir William Henry
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Dick[...]e, John P.
McCorquodale, M. B.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dlxey, Arthur C. N.
Macdonalo Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Doran, Edward
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcllffe, Harold


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Maltland, Adam
Todd, A. L. S. (Klngswinford)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, Ronald


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Entw[...]itle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Weymouth, Viscount


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moreing, Adrian C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moss. Captain H. J
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Goff, Sir Park
North, Edward T.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.



Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Granvllle, Edgar
Patrick, Colin M.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Pearson, William G.
George Penny.


Graves, Marjorie
Petherlck, M.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William


Banfield, John William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Paling, Wilfred


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, Gaorge
Harris, Sir Percy
Rothschild, James A. de


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dobble, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Catrph[...]y)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph




Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Wilmot, John

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill,

Cardiff Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SHOPS BILL [Lords.]

That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill, without Amendment; to certain others, with an Amendment; and to one other, with Amendments; and they have made consequential Amendments to the Bill.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Fourth Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged: —Bill withdrawn.

COAL MINES (PROTECTION OF ANIMALS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged: —Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of, and payments to, Cattle Fund.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture exactly what we are to expect from this Clause. When the right hon. Gentleman issued a White Paper a short time ago, there was an indication that, if he succeeded in his bargaining with the importers from South America and the Dominions, he would be able to apply a levy. In a few observations which he made during the Debate upon the Money Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman hinted that there was no possibility of any levy being brought into effect. Hon. Members are in some doubt as to whether the £3,000,000 advance is to be regarded as a direct subsidy from the Treasury with no hope or intention of repayment, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the proceeds of the levy would ultimately go towards repaying the advances. We ought to have as clear a statement as the right hon. Gentleman can make. I appreciate that he can only reply provisionally, the position depending upon whether he succeeds or fails in his negotiations with the South American countries and various parts of the Dominions, but a matter which ought to be cleared up once and for all is whether this fund is to be drawn from the Treasury with no intention of repayment, or whether the money is likely to be repaid out of a future levy following negotiations with the various interests. If the latter is to be the case, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there will be intense opposition from these benches to any part of the Measure; on the other hand, should the proposal be for a direct payment from the Treasury, our opposition may be slightly, but only slightly, tempered. The Committee are entitled to know, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in so far
as lie can make a statement, will do so, and will let us know whether the tax-, payers are to pay this £3,000,000 or whether the consumers of imported meat are to pay it. If the right hon. Gentleman will clear up that matter, the Committee will be better able to determine their attitude towards the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I readily respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The position as regards Clause 1 is simply that it sets up a fund, and the remaining Clauses indicate how payments shall be made out, of that fund. In the White Paper we said that if we could secure agreement with the countries concerned, it was our intention to place a levy upon duties, but it would not be in order to discuss that proposal at this stage. The Bill merely makes provision for the payment of money out of the fund. We thought it fair to leave hon. Members in no misapprehension as to what were the aims of our policy, but it would not be in order to go further into that matter on this occasion.

3.46 p.m

Mr. PALING: The Clause says that any advance shall be repaid from the fund to the Exchequer. We understand that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the money by means of a levy, but, in presenting the Money Resolution, he indicated that there might be a difficulty as to whether the countries would pay or not, and that it might be found, after negotiation, that the levy could not be put on at all. If the negotiations fail and the levy cannot be put on, and the fund does not materialise, from what source is the right hon. Gentleman going to repay the money to the Exchequer? I understand that the money is to be taken out of the Exchequer immediately, and before the levy is decided upon.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I shall do my best to make that point more clear. It will eventually be within the power of this country, when the trade agreements run out, to place any levy desired upon any imports coming into this country, if no arrangement can be come to before that time. No levy will be, or can be, imposed in contravention of any trade
agreement into which we have entered, but when the trade agreements run out it will open to the country to decide whether it desires to place a levy upon imports. What I indicated was that it was at present the policy of His Majesty's Government to recommend that such a levy should be placed upon imports. Naturally that is a matter for the future. We are dealing with the present,, and we cannot discuss that matter now.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. PALING: Is it the intention of the Government, whatever be the result of the negotiations, to repay this money to the Treasury in any circumstances? That provision is part of the Clause. The government are asking for the money on the understanding that it shall be repaid. Hon. Members have argued that this money is not a subsidy, but is only a loan. If the levy fails, from what source is the money to be repaid?

3.49 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member is discussing points which arise under Subsections (2) and (3). These are mere matters of accounting. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy. If the country does not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but that is not contrary to the statement of the White Paper. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy, and if the Government carry through Parliament the legislation necessary for putting through a levy. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend a levy, and, if the House accepts the Government's advice, then the money will be repaid. The House of Commons is completely sovereign over what it does in the future, and it is in a position to accept or reject any advice given to it by the Government. We are making preparations to pay from this fund advances towards the producers of beef. We have indicated to the House how we propose to feed that fund in the future, and it would be out of order to enter into that matter now.

3.50 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I have never been under any delusion with regard to this particular fund. When we were considering the Financial Resolution, I anticipated exactly what the Minister has now made clear. The right hon. Gentle-
man has always been perfectly frank, and has never tried to deceive either the House or the country. I interpreted the Financial Resolution as meaning that the whole idea of creating a fund of this kind was that, when the opportunity and circumstances permitted, the fund would be reimbursed by a levy—or in other words a tax—on imported meat. I pointed out at the time, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that at present, owing to an agreement which we have made with the Argentine, our hands are tied until 1936, and in the case of the Dominions until 1937, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is powerless to act in the manner contemplated without a real breach of agreements solemnly made in return for certain concessions on manufactured goods. The whole thing is a speculation. The right hon. Gentleman is, if I might say so, gambling on his powers of bluff or pressure with the Argentine and the Dominions to get them to give way and agree to a levy. I assume that he is going to use the threat of a quota, as a possible alternative, to persuade them to agree to a levy. He is going to say to them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I do not think we can go into a general question of policy of that kind on the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, but it is in order to ask the Minister whether the money is to be found from the Treasury or whether there is some intention to find it from other sources.

Sir P. HARRIS: Then we are not discussing the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we not justified, as controllers of the public purse, in trying to find out clearly, before we agree to this fund being started, how it is to be repaid? I am not, of course, questioning your Ruling, but, after all, the two things are inter-connected. If we are going to create a fund, we have, in our solemn position as defenders of the taxpayer, to ascertain how the right hon. Gentleman is going to find the money. Unfortunately, money does not come down like manna from Heaven; it has to come out of some pocket, whether it be the Income Tax payer's or the indirect taxpayer's;
and it seems to me that, before we agree to establish, not a small fund of a few hundred or a few thousand pounds, but a fund of £3,000,000, to be given as gratuities, no doubt thoroughly deserved, to a particular interest, we ought to know how the money is to be raised and who is going to provide the cash. I am surprised that, on the occasion of a Debate of this kind—it shows how we are degenerating in our duty as controllers of the public purse—there is no representative of the Treasury present to explain to the Committee how this new fund, which may be a precedent for others, is to be managed. When we are starting this new principle of subsidies, we ought to be told perfectly frankly how it is going to be financed.
It seems to me, and my hon. Friends above the Gangway appear to agree more or less, that it is going to be found at present from the general taxpayer— in other words, that it is going to be found out of the vanishing surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only other alternative, which I am precluded from discussing on this occasion, would be to find some new form of revenue. A new form of revenue has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but even that is a gamble; he is not sure whether he will be able to find that new form of revenue. I think that this is a very clumsy and dangerous way of carrying out legislation. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, when he is dealing with shipping, will use a more satisfactory method for financing the subsidy. Now that the Minister of Agriculture is embarking on his third method of helping agriculture—the first was by quotas, the second was Protection, and now we have a subsidy—he ought to make it clear to Parliament, and through Parliament to the country, how the money is to be obtained. If it is to be obtained by a tax, let the right hon. Gentleman say so; or, if not, let him make it clear to the nation that it is to come from the general taxpayer.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The speech of the hon. Baronet was obviously devoted, not to making the matter clear, but to confusing the mind of the public outside. The matter is perfectly clear. The Minister has told us that he is hoping by negotiation to bring about certain arrangements which will place the money
at his disposal, but in the meantime he wants to give immediate assistance to the industry. He proposes to do that in the first place by a loan out of the Consolidated Fund—which is what I might call one of the numerous book entries under the charge of the Treasury —and later on, when the exact situation is known, that is to say when it is known whether he will be able to make arrangements for a levy, and whether in that event the levy collected during the financial year will be equal to or less than the amount required, he will know how much he will need by way of a Supplementary Estimate, and in due course that Supplementary Estimate will be presented and passed. It will then be possible to refund to the Consolidated Fund the sum which for the moment has been advanced on loan. Surely, there is no mystery about that.
Since the other aspect of the policy is not known, and cannot be known until certain negotiations are completed, the Minister in the meantime is making the money available. Whether it will be a charge on the general taxpayer at the 31st March next, obviously neither the Minister nor anyone else can say at the moment, because the negotiations are not completed. In the worst circumstances, there will be a Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000, and to that extent the Financial prospects for the present year will be worse than they otherwise would have been. On the other hand, if the levy, or tariff, or whatever it may be called, is obtained, that sum will not be required in full. Surely, there has never been any mystery about the matter; it has all been disclosed in full in the past. I do not understand why hon. Members are trying to make a mystery out of something which has never been a mystery, and never can be a mystery, because it has been perfectly clearly disclosed.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has himself rather mystified the Committee. The hon. Gentleman, 'who now apparently speaks on behalf of the Treasury, has made quite clear to us, so far as he himself knows, precisely where this money is coming from, but in a matter of this kind, when £3,000,000 has to be found from somewhere, while
a book entry is all very well in its way, there must be a day of reckoning, and I am wondering where the safeguard of the Treasury has got to. It has always been assumed in this House, and it has been said on many occasions by various Ministers, that, however sympathetic they may be to one scheme or another, the watchdog of the Treasury always stands in the way. What has happened so far as this matter is concerned? Apparently the watchdogs of the Treasury have gone to sleep, or have gone on a holiday; or is it because there has been a change in the officials that we have no representative of the Treasury here to give us that explanation which obviously the hon. Member for South Croydon himself thinks the Committee requires and should have?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not think that the Committee required it, but, after the remarks of hon. Members opposite, I thought that the people outside might.

Mr. BANFIELD: If I may suggest to my hon. Friend opposite, very kindly, there are other people beside himself who speak for the people outside this House. It would appear to me that if the Budget surplus which the Chancellor anticipates in this financial year is to be frittered away by a subsidy last week, a subsidy this week and, possibly, a further subsidy next week, the people outside will want to know what the Treasury is doing and what the House itself is doing to allow millions of money to be given to this or that distressed industry, with, apparently, no safeguards whatever. I look upon this Clause as the fundamental Clause of the Bill. I am not satisfied about the fund. Had a wicked Labour Government suggested the setting up of a fund of this kind for some other purpose, hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have denounced it to the utmost. I hope that we shall vote against this Clause. It is a matter of serious consideration if the Government side of the House no longer have any qualms about the Treasury, and if they themselves are indifferent as to the way millions of money are to be given to this, that or the other object. At least, we on this side are thoroughly justified in demanding that we get some official statement from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to
where this money is coming from. The Minister of Agriculture himself is by no means satisfied in his mind that there is any possibility of getting this tariff, or levy, or whatever it is, soon enough to give us this money back in this financial year. He makes provision for round about six or seven months. I cannot understand —it may be due, of course, to my utter ignorance—Sub-section (2), which says:
any advances made under this subsection to the Cattle Fund shall be repaid from that fund to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom before the end of that financial year.
If that means anything at all, in view of what the Minister has explained from time to time, it is pretty obvious that this money will have to be found by the Exchequer, and as it appears that it must be found by the Exchequer for this financial year, under the terms of Subsection (2), surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might have been here to explain to us that this has their blessing, that they do not mind £3,000,000 going in this way, and endeavour to ease the minds of some hon. Members who are not so readily inclined to see millions of money, I will not say exactly thrown away, but frittered away without any guarantee or sufficient explanation. Of course, we are all obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon for trying to do his very best for the Minister and the Government, and I am sure that they in turn, must be extremely obliged to him for the care which he takes to explain and apologise; but the hon. Member's explanation hardly carries the same weight as that of the Chancellor, and it is only fair, right and what is due to the dignity of this House, that a statement should be made either by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary with regard to this £3,000,000.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I should be glad if the Minister would explain the two Memoranda which have been issued. Sub-section (2) of this Clause merely states:
The Treasury may, during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, make, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, advances to the Cattle Fund not exceeding in the aggregate three million pounds.
Then, in the first Memorandum, it is also stated:
Authority will be sought in this Bill for making temporary advances to the Cattle Fund from the Consolidated Fund to an amount not exceeding £3,000,000.
But the small Memorandum, which was placed in our hands last Thursday, states:
It is estimated that the total sum which Parliament will be asked to provide under the proposed legislation in respect of payments to producers and in respect of the administrative expenses of the Cattle Committee and of the appropriate Ministers will not exceed £3,000,000.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain a very simple matter, namely, whether the amount is really limited to £3,000,000, or, as indicated in the final Memorandum, it is merely an estimate.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think that this Clause is absolutely clear, and, in the event of the Government being unable to come to any terms such as the Minister stated, the taxpayer will have to pay. May I congratulate the Minister on having done one thing that I have never known any Minister do before: he has made something clear to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I understand that the hon. Member now says it was not made clear, but I think he got one sentence clearly in his head. I want to say, as one who has always very strenuously opposed anything of this kind, that, as far as I can see at the present time, the Minister, having been put in an exceedingly difficult and hopeless position, has had to come to the Exchequer. Whether you are justified in coming to the Exchequer for £3,000,000 for the beef producer and the agricultural labourer, is a matter of balance, on the whole. The Minister has been put in this position by years of a system of free imports, and, Further, by the behaviour of a section of the Liberal party, or, should I say, ex-Liberals, who were returned to support the Government. If you fail at the present time to help the beef market, you will have an enormous addition to unemployment, and if you think also of the stimulus put into other trades and industries, I think the Minister has some justification for the expenditure of this money.
But I would say, as a Member of the House of Commons who dislikes any form of subsidy, and dislikes going to the Exchequer whether it is for coal or anything else, that this is only justified
because of the success of the wheat quota, and the whole of this will follow on those lines. I would say at the same time that I think it is rather a pity that on all these occasions you fall back on the Exchequer. I am always being told that there are immense funds at present available in the money market, and I am not at all sure that it might not be possible in some other way, by starting a company or something of that kind, so that there was not the chance of piling burdens on the Exchequer, as you are in this Bill. All I wish to say on this Clause is that I, personally, have not the slightest intention of taking part in this subsidy one way or the other, and I protest most strongly in the interests of the taxpayer, but I would like to remind those who criticise the Government that this position is almost entirely of their own making, and every time they speak they simply show their entire lack of knowledge of agriculture and the conditions of the business world to-day.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I want to be clear about the money which is being voted today to the Cattle Fund. In the first place, in the event of the Minister of Agriculture succeeding in extracting an agreement by the negotiations he is about to enter into with the representatives of the Argentine, I take it from him that it is proposed, 'as soon as may be, to impose a levy on those people, and that the money now being taken from the Consolidated Fund will be repaid, but that, in the event of those negotiations not succeeding, then he tells us at some future time, in 1936 or 1937, or sometime after that, when the existing agreements have expired, it is the intention of the Government that a levy shall be imposed. But a, number of things may happen in the meantime to alter the views of the Minister or the Government. A General Election may alter the constitution of the Government, and, in those circumstances, they would have to consider whether or not the policy of the present Government should be pursued. Assuming the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in these negotiations, and the levy is imposed, who is going to pay the levy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that that would require fresh legislation, and we cannot go into the
question of fresh legislation now. In no circumstances could money from other sources be paid into the Cattle Fund under this Bill.

Mr. McENTEE: I accept your Ruling, but, so far, we have been discussing the question of the House being asked to vote a sum of money to-day on the assumption that the levy will be repaid, but, if we cannot discuss that, I will put it in this way. We are really in the position now that there is no guarantee whatever that this money will be paid back to the Treasury. The Minister says that he hopes in the future to be able to do something which it is not in order to discuss now, and that if that does take place, the Government of the day hope to be able to pay the money back into the Treasury. Is it not a fact that if they are unable to pay back the £3,000,000 in the way indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, the consumers of meat on which the levy is to be imposed will pay? Would anyone in their senses imagine that the people who have actually to pay the cash down in the form of a, levy—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All that I ruled was that the hon. Member was entitled to ask the Government whether they could raise money from some other source or not. We cannot go into details.

Mr. McENTEE: I certainly do not want to do anything contrary to your Ruling, but may I submit that I am trying to get clearly as to who, in fact, will ultimately pay the money, whether it comes in the form of a levy, a quota, a subsidy or a tariff, which it is hoped to impose on someone in the future, and that that sum, when recovered, will be put back into the Treasury. Am I not in order in arguing that, if the money is recovered in that way, it will be passed on by the people from whom it is recovered to the actual people who consume the meat?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on this Clause. If the hon. Member looks at the Financial Resolution which covers the Clause, he will see that it provides for advances to the Cattle Fund, not exceeding in the aggregate £3,000,000 out of the Consolidated Fund and for requiring that any such advances shall be repaid out of moneys provided by Parlia-
ment before the end of the financial year. Therefore, it will require fresh legislation to pay money into this fund from any other source but a supplementary Estimate.

Mr. McENTEE: There is no guarantee whatever that the money will be paid from any other source except public money from one Department to another. I should like to ask a question or two in regard to the administration of the fund itself. The Clause says that, subject to certain regulations which will be imposed by the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor will be the administrator of the fund. We have a right to know how he is going to administer it. In connection with all other money that we vote here, we generally get some information as to the general lines on which it will be administered, and some information as to the test that will be applied to the people who are to become the beneficiaries. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply any test to the stock raisers.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That arises on the next Clause.

Mr. McENTEE: The Clause says that the fund is to be controlled by the Minister of Agriculture. Before we pass over that right of control, surely he has an obligation to tell us what conditions he will apply to the people who are to benefit under the fund.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that really arises on Clause 2. The hon. Member can discuss the general administration, but Clause 2 deals with the terms on which the money is to be paid out to the producers, and the question arises there.

Mr. McENTEE: I will put my questions on the next Clause.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I am very much indebted to you, Sir, for your Ruling, because it makes it clear that, although the Government are suggesting that we should spend £3,000,000, there may be no provision whatever for repaying the money to the Treasury. We find ourselves in very peculiar circumstances to-day. We have the most ingenious Minister of Agriculture that we have ever had, and in this Clause we have his
latest device for helping the farming industry, and he is going to give them £3,000,000. He has no hesitation in making that statement quite clearly, and I have not the slightest doubt that he feels no qualms of conscience about it at all. He knows very well how generous are the masses of the people of the country. Not only do they make sacrifices on behalf of those who are worse off than themselves, but they are willing to make sacrifices for people who are better off than themselves and, whatever method the right bon. Gentleman may suggest of getting this money back at some time in the future, he will be able to take it from the pockets of the great masses of the people, and they will not squeal very much. Just as they help one another, he knows they will help the farmers and will help everyone else who is much better off than they are, and consequently the Minister is satisfied. Your Ruling, Sir, has made it clear where the Government stand on this matter. Here is £3,000,000 for the farmers. We do not know precisely how it is to be paid back to the Treasury, but we know that, when the moment comes, the mass of the people of the country will pay up and will be happy and the farmers will be more prosperous than they have ever been before.

Mr. T. SMITH: Are we to have no reply from the Minister? It is treating the Committee with scant courtesy if we do not get an answer.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am more than ready to reply. I have been waiting until hon. Members have concluded their remarks. I had to remain seated while others were standing. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) asked how the Clause squared with the financial Memorandum. 'Clearly it would be rushing the matter unduly to bring in a supplementary Estimate; therefore, a temporary advance will be paid from the Consolidated Fund limited to the temporary period of the Bill. As to the other point, of course what the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) is pleading for is a quota of the most rigorous kind to be applied forthwith, so that no liability shall fall on the Treasury. The hon. Member is more royalist than the King. While I am anxious to avoid inroads upon the trade
of the country or an immediate jolt to the price level, which might be caused by a rigorous application of the quota, hon. Members opposite have pressed on me that no leniency should be shown to the foreign or indeed the Dominion importer at all, which might lead to a liability on the Treasury.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond my Ruling.

Mr. ELLIOT: Far be it from me to enlarge the ambit of the Debate. I think the matter has been made quite clear and the intentions of the Government have been made clear within the limits of Order, and I hope very much that it will now be possible for the Committee to let us have the Clause.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I am very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman has acquired a reputation for straightforwardness. Surely the questions that have been put to him are very plain indeed. The Clause says, that these moneys shall be repaid from the Cattle Fund to the Consolidated Fund and that they shall be paid before the end of the financial year.

Mr. ELLIOT: Out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Mr. PALING: That is true, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer. We have had one from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not accept any answer given by anyone but myself, but I have repeatedly made it clear that this legislation merely requires money to be paid into the Cattle Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament, and anything else will need further legislation.

Mr. PALING: If within the seven months it is not possible to arrive at an agreement, or if the money cannot be raised in the way it is intended to be raised, is the Minister coming to the House for a supplementary Estimate?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is laid down in the most explicit form in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill. Of course, I must come to the House for a supplementary Estimate. There is no power under this legislation to do anything else.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 39.

Division No. 343.]
AYES.
[4.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Pearson, William G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rld, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Alien, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Granville, Edgar
Percy, Lord Eustace


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick, M.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pike, Cecil F.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


B[...]ndell, James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brass, Captain Sir William
Has[...]am, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Buchan, John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ropner, Colonel L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ross, Ronald D.


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brm[...]y)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, d.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lees-Jones, John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Levy, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cooke, Douglas
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwlch)


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerset, Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crossl[...]y, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spear[...], Brigad[...]-General Edward [...]


Da[...]keith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davison, Sir William Henry
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McK[...]e, John Hamilton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Dickle, John P.
Macqukisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Doran, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Drewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Meller, Sir Richard James
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'w[...]ck-on-T.)


Duggan, Hubert John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh E[...]sdale
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Morsing, Adrian c.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eimley, Viscount
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro. Patrick
Weymouth, Viscount


Entwistle, Cyril Fu[...]lard
Nail, Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fielden, Edward Brock[...]ehurst
Nation, Brigad[...]r-General J. J. H.
Windsor-C[...]ve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fox, Sir Gilford
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Fremantle, Sir Francis
North, Edward T.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.



Goff, Sir Park
O[...] Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sir Victor Warrender and Major




George Davies.


NOES.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Banfield, John William
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Batey, Joseph
Dobble, William
Harris, Sir Percy


Bernays, Robert
Edwards, Charles
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William


Cove, William G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Lunn, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilmot, John


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sa[...]ter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mainwaring, William Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)



Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pa[...]ng, Wilfred
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 2.—(Payments out of Cattle Fund to producers of cattle.)

4.35 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after "animals," to insert "which have been sold for slaughter."
It is our intention to make certain that the payments referred to in this Clause which are to be made out of the Cattle Fund to producers of cattle in respect of certain categories shall only be made when the beast is sold for slaughter. The words of the Amendment make the position plain, and it is our intention to avoid the possibility of extensive trafficking in cattle in anticipation of the subsidy by people who are already too numerous and take too large a share of the proceeds of the cattle industry. The Minister and the House know that in the preparation of beef for the market there is considerable trafficking. The young cattle are bought and brought together usually in large numbers by people who make a business of preparing livestock for the market. Very often one finds that young beasts are taken away from the place where they have been bought to certain suitable areas in the course of preparation for market. The business of preparing beast for slaughter is a very highly skilled and specialised one, and in that preparation, in which the livestock breeder plays so important a part, there are also people who make it their business to buy and sell these beasts. The dealer who makes it his business to buy and sell does not play any part in the actual fattening or preparation of the beast. It is because we believe that there is already too large an element of speculation and of trafficking in this business that we provide in our Amendment that no payment shall be made except to the cattle producer. As there are other Amendments on the Order Paper, to which, I understand, Captain Bourne, you are permitting me to refer in the course of my arguments on this Amendment, I would point out that we wish to make certain that the person to receive the subsidy shall be the person responsible for the production of beef
and not the person who comes in between and takes advantage of market conditions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—in page 3, line 27, to leave out "United Kingdom," and to insert "possession of the applicant "—it would be very difficult to argue any point which did not. arise on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and the more I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the more I am convinced that that is the case.

Mr. GRENFELL: Our intention is that a person shall not be able to buy any number of cattle for preparation for market or for reaching marketable condition and sell them again to somebody else, so that the dealer receives the subsidy and not the producer who has prepared the beast for market. I am speaking in the presence of people who know the business very much more intimately than I do, but hon. Members will realise that very often these cattle may be sold a few weeks before they are actually due for slaughtering. Where they change hands shortly before being turned into beef it is bound to result in a grave miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the purposes of the subsidy. If such a thing is encouraged and opportunity is given to a dealer to buy a beast, and then, after having it in his possession for a few weeks, to send it forward to the slaughter-house, he will be able to pocket the subsidy which will be payable. If one reads the Bill from beginning to end, he can find no reference to the actual point at which the subsidy is to be paid. There is a reference to carcases, but there is no direct reference to the point at which the subsidy becomes payable. The words of the Clause say that
the appropriate Ministers may, in accordance with any arrangements approved by them … make out of the Cattle Fund payments to producers of cattle in respect of"—
the categories mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)—
being animals or carcases, as the case may be, which have been sold in the United Kingdom by such producers during a period, and so on.
Any cattle sold between the 1st day of August of this year and the 1st day of April of next year will be liable to the payment of the subsidy. The claim, according to the Clause, can be made by anybody who sells a fat beast between these dates without any condition that the animal shall be immediately slaughtered. A person may approach the Treasury and say, "I sold a beast which fell within these two categories, and I claim the money due to me under the Act." Our chief concern is not as to the amount of exploitation of the Measure, but one in which we regard the producer as the person most entitled to benefit under it. The benefit should not go to some sham person who has kept the beast for a few weeks before killing it, and has then sold it, saying: "I want the subsidy of 9s. 4d. per cwt," or 5s. per cwt. if the beast has been sold in a live condition. Therefore, we move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will find it a necessary and a reasonable one and will clearly lay down the condition that the subsidy shall be given to the cattle producer and not to any person who can step in between the producer and the market and hold the Cattle Fund up to ransom and demand the payment laid down in this Clause.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) for moving the Amendment. I think that his point is not merely a simple one, but one of importance, namely, the destination of the money payment, and the desire on the part of both sides of the Committee is to ensure that the money payment shall go to the proper person. Clearly, when we have to pay on beef it will not be possible for it to be paid on sales of store stock. The suggestion here is that we can get over the administrative difficulties which may arise by saying "Sold for slaughter." I ask the hon. Member for Gower whether that, in fact, would carry out his desire, namely, to ensure that the money shall go to the producer of the beef and not necessarily to a dealer in beef. It would be possible for a dealer to visit a farm and collect animals which were ready for
slaughter and take them to the market and sell them and collect the money. I think that "Sold for slaughter" will be very difficult to administer, because, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, that is an expression of the intention of the vendor. It is not necessarily binding on the purchaser. The Reorganisation Committee considered that point, and I will read to the Committee in a moment what they said, because it rather comes down against this solution. We came down in favour of the solution "Fit for slaughter"; that is to say, if and when a man has produced a beef animal which is fit for killing and comes up to the standard prescribed by the regulations of the Minister and takes it to a market and sells it, he thereupon qualifies for this deficiency payment.
By our arrangement we ensure that the animal is thereupon marked and that a certificate is given to the seller that he has so sold it. Thereupon, the payment can only be made in connection with this first transaction. He might sell it possibly for a small amount, or, if he did not approve of the price, he could withdraw the animal from sale, but it would have been weighed and stamped as fit for slaughter, and it would still be possible for him on a later occasion when it was sold to get the payment for the beast. It would remain in his power to collect the payment and it would not be in the power of anyone else. All that arises out of the arrangements which will have to be made, and my hon. Friend will see that it all hinges on the arrangements made for certification and marking after the passing of the Act that is, when the animal is certified as fit for slaughter.
We are hard at work upon the arrangements now, and I hope that it may be possible to give more detailed information about them before the House rises. When we are in a position to communicate the information I shall be glad if my hon. Friends will put down a question, or otherwise, to elicit the whole of the information so far as we have gone. We are standing upon the test, "Fit for slaughter." First, has the producer produced a beef animal? Secondly, there and then, we mark the beef animal so that the producer, and not anyone else, may collect the money. I hope that if these arrangements are found satisfactory to my hon. Friend, it will not be neces-
sary for him to press the Amendment. It is unnecessary to read the whole of the passage which I had intended to read from the report of the Reorganisation Commission, but it is germane to say that they point out, on page 32, that there is a class of stock on the border line, in a three-fourths fattened condition, which would be bought for slaughter or for further feeding, according to the requirements at the moment of the meat market.
It would be desirable that that class should not be extinguished. There is the man who buys an animal which is fit for slaughter, but says, "I can put a polish on this beast; I can improve it." In those circumstances it is not necessary for him to take the animal to the abattoir and have it knocked on the head. If he desires, with his special skill, he can put a polish on the beast and bring it to a greater state of fitness, but he will not collect the deficiency payment. That payment falls to the man who produces the beast which is fit for slaughter and sells it. The other man who buys it and further polishes it does not get the money. I hope that explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Member.

4.48 p.m.

Major HILLS: The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman seems to be clear, but I should like him to say what constitutes making an animal fit for slaughter. If an animal is raised, for instance, on a hill farm and it is sent to the lower country to better grass, it will be made fit for slaughter. In the case of a partly fattened animal it may be sold for slaughter or kept for a short time to be completely fattened. Under Clause 2, the man who is to get the payment is the producer. I am sure that we are all anxious that the payment should go to the right person. Would it be the right person if the producer was taken to be merely the last hand that had touched the cattle, that is, the farmer or dealer who had finished off the cattle, even though the finishing process was only a small part in the life history of the animal? I know that it is a very difficult question, and I agree that if you have a rule that you only make payment to the man who has produced an animal fit for slaughter you get a simple rule, but I am not quite sure that that would be just to the stock raiser, especially in the
part of the country that I represent. You may get a large number of cattle that are raised and only partly fattened and then sent away. Where does the equity lie? Who ought to get the subsidy? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman imagine a hard case where the real work put into fattening the animal is done by somebody who only indirectly benefits. He may benefit indirectly by the general rise in the price of stores and of partly fattened animals, but the rise would only take place conditional on the number of stores being reduced. It may well be that the subsidy would leave out the man who had done a large part of the work and it would be given to one who had not so well deserved it. I appreciate the advantage of having a clear rule, but the matter is very difficult, and I should like to trouble the right hon. Gentleman to give me further information.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I can answer my right hon. Friend quite simply. The producer is the man who produces the animal fit for slaughter, and it would be clearly impossible to go back into the store trade. If a man fattens a beast to the point when it is fit for slaughter, he can either by the ordinary commercial transaction sell it to somebody else, and take into account the fact that he is not himself to collect the deficiency payment, or he can send the beast to the market and collect the deficiency payment himself, when, though the animal is subsequently sold to another person and polished by a further process, no further payment can be made. Therefore, we come down to the one question, what is "fit for slaughter"? I should say, in the briefest possible way, that it is an animal that is going to kill out at a certain percentage of its weight. There is no difficulty about that, because we have had to administer similar conditions in connection with Irish fat cattle. Therefore, it comes down to a fairly simple final test of what is an animal fit for the butcher and what is not. Almost in every case people will judge on the ordinary evidence of their eyes, but in the percentage at which the animal will kill out we have a simple test which will be applied.

Major HILLS: I am rather anxious, because I am afraid that that arrangement will rule out a large number of stock raisers who will get no direct benefit under the Act.

Mr. ELLIOT: We are all agreed as to the store trade, and there is no point at which the deficiency payment can be made in respect of store beasts. It can only be made when the beast is brought forward fit for slaughter. The storeman gets his advantage. We have to remember what would happen if this payment were not made and the price of beasts was down. In that case, the price that would come to the storeman would be so much worse. Clearly, under this arrangement the storeman will get an advantage. There must be some administrative rule under which the payment shall be made, and the administrative rule is whether the beast is fit for killing.

4.54 p.m.

Sir ROBERT SMITH: Let me put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. A producer has produced a beast fit for killing and he is entitled to the deficiency payment, but he may sell the beast to another person, who may further enhance the value of the animal. Must the producer who brought the animal up to the fit stage for deficiency payment claim that subsidy, or can he sell the beast to another man and transfer to that other party the right to claim the payment?

4.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In the old days in Lincolnshire the dealers used to come to the farms and buy the fat cattle. Now, I understand that it is proposed to do all the marking in the markets. It was convenient for the farmers when the dealers came round to the farms. In that case will the arrangements about marking work? Will the beast be marked in the dealers' hands? If so, will there not be difficulty about getting the payments?

4.56 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: Marking must be done under supervision, and therefore it can only be done at an approved centre. We estimate that there will be some hundreds of these approved centres. Clearly, it would be impossible to have an officer in attendance at every place where a sale may take place, or, alternatively, to allow private individuals to have control of the marking apparatus, which clearly might be a source of, let me say, great convenience to them, if not great profit. The apparatus for marking must be in the hands of somebody responsible, and therefore it must be at
an approved centre. Therefore, if a man sold a beast on the farm he would have to sell it without the marking, trusting to the dealer to give him a price in accordance with what he has learned, by the wireless or otherwise, to be the prevailing price for fat stock. There is no very great danger in that. The producer, if he is dissatisfied with the price offered by the dealer, can himself send the beast to the market and claim the deficiency payment.

Sir R. SMITH: Can he transfer the right to the deficiency payment to the man to whom he sells the beast, if it is ready for slaughter?

Mr. ELLIOT: If he sells it, after it has been marked, in his own name, he cannot transfer it, but if he sells it before it has been marked, he can transfer it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Take the case of farms where they have a disposal sale when somebody dies or when farms are given up. In some cases the number of cattle may be 200 or 300. Will it be possible to deal with those cases by marking on the farm?

Mr. ELLIOT: It would be possible to deal with them if there were large numbers, but it would be inadvisable to multiply the centres unnecessarily, because that would raise the administrative cost and thereby less money would be available to be distributed to the producers. It is desirable to work the centres as cheaply as possible. In general, a price level will be established which will be broadcast all over the country and when such price level has been established private transactions will in a great many cases take place before the deficiency payment has been paid in those particular instances.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I think we can now understand what it is proposed to do. Arrangements are to be made—and those arrangements will be made known to the people concerned and also to the House in due course—for the certification of beasts sold for beef purposes, and that certification will carry the right to the deficiency payment. There is only one certification and that certification will be made the test. There will be no possibility that the beast will carry two payments or that two persons will draw the
subsidy in respect of one beast. We are prepared to withdraw the Amendment on an understanding from the Minister that he does not encourage trafficking in beasts which are almost fit for marketing or the creation of any doubt whether the actual producer may be exploited by a system which the dealers may invent among themselves to circumvent the intention of the Bill and to prevent the producer from getting his due payment.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to give that understanding.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "on," to "and," in line 29, and to insert:
the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.
The purpose of the Amendment is to determine the date upon which payments under the Bill shall begin instead of leaving it to be determined in the future as is proposed in the Bill. The Minister of Agriculture will probably say that, in view of the difficulty of setting up a rather complicated organisation, it will be well to have a little latitude in the matter of the time, and that if no date is fixed and the machinery is not ready, no harm will be done. I suggest that if he fixes on the date proposed in the Amendment, which I believe is the date he had in mind when he spoke on the Financial Resolution, and we know that his preparations are well advanced, he need have no fear that those responsible for setting up the organisation will let him down and will not be ready on 1st September. The Ministry of Agriculture in the last few years has shown itself to be admirably equipped for dealing with schemes of great magnitude and complexity at short notice and with great expedition, and I feel that on this occasion they will be able to do the same. My experience as a former Government official, not under the present Government, is that in some respects it is better to have a fixed date. From the point of view of the cattle producer it is of vital importance that payments should begin at the earliest possible moment. For two years at least prices have been quite unremunerative and many producers of cattle are in desperate straits to-day,
there are very few who are not in difficulty. Now this hope is being held out and surely it is not too much to ask that it shall be given to them at the earliest possible date.

5.2 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I should like to support the Amendment, and to point out to the Government that September is the first of the big months for beef supplies. The only other point I want to make is this, that the later you leave it, the later you leave the commencement of the operation of the subsidy, the more likely you are to get an extra quantity and thus intensify the autumn glut in September and November, which it is the object of the subsidy to defeat.

5.3 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I appreciate the reasons why the Amendment has been moved. The hon. Member who moved it did, in fact, anticipate clearly the answer that I shall have to give. We are all of us most desirous that it should be possible to begin payment on the 1st September, should my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture find it possible to fix that date, but it would be unwise, with some five or six weeks of intensive organisation before us, to bind us by legislation to that particular date. I am glad of this opportunity, seeing that the question of date has been raised, of saying that the utmost expedition is being used; and what is more that every possible difficulty has as far as possible been figured in advance and dealt with in advance, which is really the essence of good administration. While we have real hopes that the 1st September may very well be the date on which payment will begin, it would be unwise to make it the legal date.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: We on these benches have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment, and if they care to divide the Committee on the matter, and would like to have our valuable support, we will do everything we can to ensure that the farming community shall have the swag at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HASLAM: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says that there is every
prospect of 1st September being the date; I should like to ask if he will be in a position before the House rises to make a definite pronouncement on the matter?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think it would be possible in view of the few days which remain to give such an assurance. The assurance I have given is that every possible effort is being made to ensure a date as early as possible, and as soon as it can be done an announcement will be made.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I can appreciate the desire of hon. Members opposite to get the money as soon as possible. I was very interested in the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) that, if the Minister would pay the subsidy between the 1st September and the 14th September, all the autumn cattle would come in between those dates. I wonder if farmers would do that if they knew that the subsidy was going to start on 14th September.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the assurance given by the Under-Secretary of State, and notwithstanding the very kind offer of hon. Members of the Labour party, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Amendment negatived.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(3) An application for the issue of a certificate for the purposes of this section in respect of an animal shall not be granted unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the person whose function it is to entertain the application that the applicant is paying wages to persons employed by him in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924.
Numerous question have been asked in the House relating to the wages of agricultural labourers and the Government have endeavoured to prove that in spite of the fact that prices have dropped and all the hardships which farmers have had to meet that there has been no drop in the wages of agricultural labourers, at least, not equal to the extent of the drop in prices. The Minister himself has said that he is not only interested in the prosperity of agriculture from
the point of view of the farmer but also from the point of view of the agricultural labourer. We take that as a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that the agricultural labourer shall get some benefit out of the moneys and subsidies which are being provided by Parliament to-day for the agricultural industry, and in the Amendment we are asking that any farmer or producer of cattle, before he gets the subsidy, shall prove to the satisfaction of the authority concerned that he is paying wages according to the Act which is now in operation.
The Minister of Agriculture may say that the Act provides that farmers shall pay a certain amount in wages, hut, unfortunately, experience proves that there are farmers, not always a very small number, who do all they can to avoid payment. Notwithstanding all the alertness of the inspectors of the Ministry they cannot possibly find out every case by a long way, and it is probably true that there are still some farmers who do not pay the proper scale of wages. If this House is going to provide money for the benefit of agriculture and if the Government are really anxious for the welfare of the labourer as for the farmer, it is not asking too much that farmers shall give some proof that they are obeying the law in this direction and are giving the labourer the scale of wages to which he is entitled.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. It would cut out Scotland altogether. That might create same difficulty, because this money would only be paid in England if it were proved that farmers were carrying out satisfactorily the Agricultural Wages Act, while they would be able to get paid in Scotland whatever they did. I am afraid there would be a great deal of hard feeling about that. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that we are desirous of maintaining and improving the standard of wages in agricultural areas, but he will also agree that it is scarcely possible to do so under the provisions of the Bill. Certification is going to be difficult enough, but imagine 400 or Son beasts walking up the main street and a sort of drum-head court-martial having to be held on each producer as he comes up. The Amendment will be much more likely to lead to great delay in butchers getting the cattle and consumers getting
their meat than to improving the condition of the agricultural labourer. Having made his point, which I fully appreciate, that the benefits which the Government are giving to agriculture by its numerous measures of assistance should not be withheld from, but should be shared by the agricultural labourer, and I having assured him that our whole desire is to maintain that principle, I hope he will not find it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I regret that the Minister of Agriculture has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. He has expressed himself over and over again as to what he hopes farmers and producers will do, but, unfortunately, our experience is that they do not do it; and we want to get something definite inserted in the Bill in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers. His point with regard to Scotland puts one in a difficulty, but the right hon. Gentleman has shown great ability in getting the most complex measures accepted and passed by this House, and I do not think he is entirely incapable of getting over this difficulty. I hope he will reconsider the matter and give us some assurance in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: As one who is desirous of benefiting both the farmer and the worker, I have considered this Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite and the question it raises. I am bound to say that I agree with the Minister that the Amendment would introduce considerable complexity. It would be likely to tend to increase the cost of administration, and, therefore, it would benefit the farmer less and ultimately the farm worker also. In this industry the farmer, who has suffered such heavy losses, is obliged to consider how many men he can employ. Anything which tends to increase the expense of administering the Bill is contrary to the interests both of the farmer and the farm worker. Hon. Members opposite have not produced any evidence to show on what scale farmers are lacking in the payment of proper wages. They have not produced evidence to show that the Ministry is slack in administering the present Acts. Before the Committee con-
siders the adoption of the Amendment such evidence should be produced. This is not the Bill and this is not the way in which to carry out what hon. Members desire.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I would be the last person to charge the general body of farmers with trying to evade their responsibility in the matter of wages. The hon. Member who asked for evidence ought to address his question to the Minister. If he cares the Board's inspectors can furnish him with statistics showing the amount of money that they have insisted should be paid by those farmers who have tried to evade their responsibilities. Further, if the hon. Member cares to apply to the National Union of Agricultural Workers for evidence he will get it, and he will be astonished at the abundance of it. Less than 24 hours ago I saw details of a case in which obviously farmer was evading his responsibility, and in which steps have been taken to secure for his farm workers what they were legally entitled to receive. Each year there is evidence that all farmers are not carrying out their legal responsibility towards the workers.
The Argument regarding the complexity that the Amendment would introduce is unsound. There is complexity in the filling up of all forms. Some farmers say that they cannot keep books or fill up Income Tax forms, but the fact is that they have more intelligence than they are credited with. When the Minister says that the Amendment would be confusing he ought to remember that if an applicant for money from this Cattle Fund knew that before he could get any money he had to pay proper wages, as laid down by the Agricultural Wages Act, that farmer would be more careful to see that his men got what they were entitled to. We ought to press the Amendment. The Minister usually expresses surprise that we criticise his subsidy policy. What we say is that if any industry comes to the State for money at least some portion of that money ought to be reflected in the. wages of the workers concerned. No one will say that the wages in agriculture are too high. On the contrary, they are far too low, and we hope to see the day when farm workers will get a better deal than they are getting now. The Minister is not treating the Committee fairly by
opposing the Amendment. The Amendment is justified, and I hope it will be pressed to a Division.

5.19 p.m.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I listened with interest to the argument of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). Hon. Members on the Labour Benches always seem to use the same argument, when we discuss a subsidy, or whatever help to the agricultural community may be called. They say that everything goes to benefit the landlord and the farmer and that nothing goes to help the farm worker. I would remind them, however, that to-day the wages of agricultural workers are rising gradually. On the other hand while hon. Members were in office the tendency was for agricultural wages to decrease. As a result of the assistance given to agriculture there are to-day more farm workers in employment, land is going back into cultivation and there are better times for everyone in the industry. I shall have pleasure in supporting the Minister to defeat the Amendment, which if carried would only have the effect of delaying the help which is to be given to all those engaged in producing fat cattle.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), when we were discussing a previous Amendment, was very anxious that the people who did the work in fat cattle raising should get the money which we are providing in the Bill. It seems to me that the people who really do the work are the farm labourers. If we push the matter to its logical conclusion they do the job. Consequently we are very anxious that they should at any rate get some of the money. We cannot be certain that by anything we will do they will get it all, but we want them to get some. The last speaker reminded us that a few days ago the Minister said there was a slight tendency for the wages of agricultural labourers to rise. We are very glad to know it. But in none of this legislation, none of these proposals to improve agriculture, is it made explicit that any of the benefits which are to go to agriculture shall go directly to the farm labourer. That is merely incidental, or rather accidental. Consequently by this Amendment we want to
make certain that wages which are the recognised wages in given areas shall be paid to the agricultural labourers who do the essential work in raising fat stock for the market. It may be that there are all kinds of ways of evading proper payment.
The Minister's argument against our Amendment was extraordinary. He did not oppose it on principle, but merely suggested that there were technical difficulties in the way. What does the word "difficulty" mean to him? He has been surmounting difficulties from the moment that he took office. He has nearly turned the agricultural world upside down. He does not convince me that there are any difficulties in the way at all. He is frightened of the farmers; that is all. Why should he be frightened? He is helping them in all sorts of ways. Let him accept the Amendment. Let him face the difficulties, as he has faced other difficulties. I think he will regret what he said a few minutes ago. Let him get up again and say now, "The Opposition is right. I have swept the difficulties out of the way, I am prepared to see that the agricultural labourers get a share of this money that is going into the industry."

5.23 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: Several hon. Members opposite have stressed the fact that at least some portion of what is going to the industry ought to pass on to the workers. I agree. Hon. Members opposite will be glad to know that in my own county there have been two rises in wages since the National Government came into power, and that those two rises just counterbalance what was lost during the period of the last Government. As regards the actual proposal of the Amendment, I ask hon. Members to contemplate a rush of cattle going through a market, one after the other, at the rate of two or three a minute. Who is to stop and make inquiries as to the antecedents of every person who is selling a beast?

5.24 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: It is assumed all along by hon. Members on the Labour benches that the farmer never pays more than the minimum wage in any part of the country. The truth is that many farmers pay more than the minimum. The Agricultural Wages Board exists for the sole purpose of seeing that when there is any
improvement in the industry the labourers get the benefit just as much as the farmers. Far from that result being accidental it is absolutely consequential. I am afraid that the Amendment is put forward with a certain amount of propaganda interest. I am not making any charges against hon. Members in this House, but there are certain baser Members of their party in parts of the country where they do not pay much attention to political decency who, if we vote against an Amendment of this sort will charge us with voting against any improvement in the wages of the agricultural worker. Rules and regulations, if they are put into force properly, can do everything that is necessary. Hon. Members might just as well say that before any colliery gets rating relief it ought to be able to show that it is paying proper wages all round.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: If the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) comes forward at a later date to ask that the mining industry shall be given the same consideration—

Sir G. ELLIS: I have not forgotten the subsidy that we had some time ago.

Mr. MACDONALD: Every coalowner should give a guarantee, when he receives any subsidy from the State, that he will pay wages according to the Minimum Wage Act of 1912.

Sir G. ELLIS: I do not think he would mind that in the least.

Mr. MACDONALD: The Minister says he has two objections to the Amendment. The first is that it would not apply to Scotland. As he knows, it was not our intention to exclude Scotland at all. Scotland is excluded by the Act to which he has referred. The right hon. Gentleman's other point was that any improvement that goes to the industry in consequence of this subsidy will show itself at an early date in an improvement of the condition of the workers in the industry. If that is the case what objection can there be to accepting the Amendment? Surely it is not intended that the farmer who does not carry out the 1924 Act should receive public money? Our sole point is that when public money is given to an industry the workers should be safeguarded. It may be a good propaganda point, but there is nothing base in the use of it. If this subsidy is going to bring
prosperity to the industry we want a guarantee that the workers shall be safeguarded, and we deny the right of any farmer to receive any public money if he is not prepared to give a definite undertaking that he has regard to the provision of the Agricultural Wages Act of 1924. There is no insurmountable difficulty in carrying out the Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. DAVID REID: I am sure the Committee are agreed as to the fundamental point of this Amendment, but when the hon. Member opposite suggested that there was no difficulty in carrying out the Amendment, he must have overlooked the fact that it would involve re-drafting the Bill. As he has already heard from the Minister the person who finally markets a beast, may not be a farmer at all. He may be a dealer to whom the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act of 1924 could not possibly apply, because he employs no agricultural labourers. The probable result of inserting these words would be to defeat the main purpose of this Measure, while the object which hon. Members opposite have in view could easily be evaded.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood the Minister's statement. The Minister was careful to point out that it was the intention that this subsidy should wherever possible be paid to the actual producer and not the dealer.

Mr. REID: The Minister is here and can speak for himself, but as I understand the position a farmer can sell to a dealer and, knowing that the subsidy is going to be added, he can ask for a higher price from the dealer. But it is then the dealer who carries out the actual sale to which the subsidy attaches.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I took it that he was discouraging trading in options in this matter—that this was to be a direct subsidy to the producer and that he was not going to encourage any trading in the right to draw the subsidy. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is desirable, when we are voting this subsidy, that we should try to make sure that it will reach the destinations for which it is intended. One such destination is the
agricultural worker. Nobody in the industry is more in need. Of course if it were impossible to carry out the Amendment there would be no point in pressing it, but I am not sure that it is impossible. I assure the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) that this is not a propaganda point any more that the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) was a propaganda point. The hon. and gallant Member said there had been two rises in agricultural wages since the present Government came into office, but I am sure he was merely trying to impress upon the Committee how much world conditions had altered during the last two years.
This Amendment is a genuine attempt to do what I am sure the Minister would like to have done and that is to see that part of this money goes to the poverty-stricken agricultural worker. The Minister pointed out to me the other day that he was asking my constituents in a London suburb to pay this subsidy with good will, because it was going to their comrades the workers in the fields. This is an attempt to enforce the right hon. Gentleman's intention in that respect. I take it that a person making an application for a payment will have to fill in and sign a form. If so, would it not be possible to embody in that form a declaration that the conditions of the Agricultural Wages Act have been observed? It amounts to nothing more than the ordinary Fair Wages Clause procedure in connection with public contracts. If the Minister is prepared to embody a declaration of that kind, in the form of application for the subsidy, I think it is possible that my hon. Friends would consider the withdrawal of the Amendment.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. D. MASON: The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) would be an admirable one if it were practicable, but I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) that it is impossible to be sure that the actual sale will be carried out by the producer. The animal which is being sold may have been passed on to another party and the holder of the animal at the time of the sale may not be a producer. I am in favour of any-
thing which would ensure the agricultural wage earner getting a share of any advantage. Much as I detest a subsidy I would like to see the agricultural worker getting his proper share, but I think we are more likely to ensure that he will get his proper share by facilitating the payment of the subsidy than by increasing the complications. If we add to the complications I do not think we are likely to advance the object which hon. Members above the Gangway have in view, and if we are going to have a subsidy at all, much as I dislike it, I think it is better that the payment of it should not be surrounded with too many complications.

5.37 p.m.

Sir R. SMITH: I think the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) recognised the weakness of this Amendment. An extraordinary position would be created if this Amendment were carried, because under the terms of the Amendment the person who would have to decide whether a farmer was paying proper wages under the Act of 1924 or not would be the official whose function it was to entertain the application for a certificate. I cannot imagine the Socialist party desiring to place the duty upon this new official of deciding whether a farmer was carrying out the terms of the Agricultural Wages Act or not. Under this Amendment a farmer who had sent forward beasts for sale could say afterwards "My cattle were passed for payment of the subsidy and therefore I am held by this official to be paying the proper wages under the Agricultural Wages Act."

Mr. WILMOT: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but in order to qualify for the subsidy, a certificate has to be applied for and the beast which is being sold has to comply with numerous requirements as to age, condition and so forth. Can we not add one more condition, namely that the beast has been produced under fair wages conditions?

Sir R. SMITH: That is not the Amendment on the Paper.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I think the point in connection with this Amendment was best summed up by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) when he said that no person should get any public money who could not give an affirmative answer
to the question, "Are you paying the proper wages?" I fully agree that no one ought to get any public money is not paying the proper wage, but on the Statute Book at present there is the machinery for the enforcement of proper wages in the agricultural industry and the question here would not be whether or not a man signed a declaration but whether or not the Agricultural Wages Act was being enforced. If we specialise on this particular point in this connection, surely we are pro tanto weakening the effect of all the other applications of the Agricultural Wages Act. It is a commonplace that if you stress one particular aspect of a Measure, you thereby and to that extent weaken the others. I can point to the fact that I have this year appointed three extra inspectors to ensure that the Agricultural Wages Act is being enforced, and I think it would be undesirable to place on the machinery of this Bill, which is designed for the swift handling of the situation in the cattle industry, the additional task of having to ascertain, all the way through, to the satisfaction of the certifying officer, whether the persons applying are paying wages in accordance with the Act of 1924 or not.
I would point out, too, that under the terms of the Amendment it is not merely a question of complying with a form or signing a declaration. It would be necessary to prove to the official that wages in accordance with the Act were being paid. 1The onus of proof would be on the person making the application. I ask my hon. Friends opposite to consider whether the enforcement of the Act of 1924 is not the proper way to proceed, and whether I am not entitled to say that I believe in the enforcement of that Act, since I have reinforced the staff necessary for that purpose. The difficulty with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland is not dealt with by merely saying that they are left out. This Amendment precludes any payment being made except to those who are carrying out the 1924 Act, and, if we carried this Amendment, we should incidentally have to pass corresponding Agricultural Wages Acts for the whole of Scotland and for Northern Ireland, which would be a considerable addition to our labours before the Recess and would impede the passage of the Bill. I am not making a point purely on the ground of technical diffi-
culties, but I submit that the proper apparatus for dealing with questions of wages payments is the Wages Act, duly enforced by a proper system of inspection. The Act is on the Statute Book, the inspectorate is in being and functioning, and the enforcement of the wages should be left there, instead of an attempt being made to spatchcock a provision of this kind into this Bill.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I want to see the Agricultural Wages Act enforced and I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to appoint additional inspectors, but that is no reason why, in connection with this subsidy, we should not give an additional incentive to those who are not paying the proper wages, to observe the terms of the Act. I think the huge majority of farmers do pay the proper wages and probably do so without giving any trouble, but it will be admitted that there are a few who do not. I do not think there would be any objection on the part of the great majority of farmers to giving a guarantee that they are paying the proper wages. Any objection would be sure to come from those who are evading the Act.

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the man who has made a false declaration in the one case, would not boggle at making a false declaration in the other case, and two false declarations instead of one would not strengthen the position of the agricultural labourer.

Mr. PALING: But a man may not be paying the proper wages under the Agricultural Wages Act, and he need not make any declaration at all.

Mr. ELLIOT: If anyone asks the question, "Are you paying fair wages?" he has to be in the position of saying "Yes." The position would not be at all strengthened if, under this Amendment, someone still had to come up and ask the question, "Are you paying fair wages?" in which case he would have to answer "Yes" or "No."

Mr. PALING: I agree that if an inspector approaches him, he has to make a declaration, but most of these people will not be approached by an inspector for a long while at least, and if they are found out and prosecuted, they generally get off to such an extent that they are not losers. If they had to make a declaration, most of these people would
think twice before making a false declaration. There is something in what the Minister says, but in spite of all his objections, I think this Amendment would help in bringing in the defaulter, whereas now he manages to keep out. I thought the Minister would have offered some more cogent objections against the Amendment than he has. The objections that he has offered are fairly small for a man like him, who admittedly has got over many difficulties. If he were willing to get over this difficulty, I am sure he could find ways and means of doing so very easily. It is no new thing for contractors, when taking on public contracts, to have to make a declaration that they are paying fair wages or trade union rates. They do it regularly, and I suggest to the Minister that if that be so, and if these people have to provide this, that, and the other proof before they get a subsidy, it is not asking much more to ask that they should provide the extra proof that they are paying fair wages.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) spoke about mining employers having to make a, similar declaration as to the payment of fair wages. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if the mining industry were getting a subsidy, the miners, being organised, would be

able to get some share of it, but in spite of our good organisation as miners, we do not manage to get all we want from the mineowners. An hon. Member opposite said that there was no need for this Amendment, because since the National Government came in agricultural wages had gone up. They have, in one or two cases, but not in all by a long way. That, however, is not due to the economic state of the industry. They have gone up because the industry has been helped so much out of public funds. If the mining industry were given something like £20,000,000 a year subsidy, as has been given to the agricultural industry year by year, the mining employers might find it possible to increase the miners' wages. The hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) objected that if we did this, it would upset the Bill, but the Minister did not say so. He was content with putting one or two specific objections to the Amendment, and that was not one of them, and if the Minister had found out that to include this Amendment would upset the whole of the Bill, he would have said so. I am sorry to say that we cannot withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 209.

Division No. 344.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Adams. D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Mainwaring, William Henry


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sinclair. MaJ. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cove. William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith. Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobble, William
Lawson, John Jamas
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell, David Rees Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Buchan, John
Cooke, Douglas


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burnett, John George
Cooper, A. Duff


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Richard Austen
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bernays, Robert
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crooke, J. Smedley


B[...]ndell, James
Carver, Major William H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'r[...])
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A


Cross, R. H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Barnard
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickle, John P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duckworth, George A. V.
L[...]ewellln, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Skelton, Archibald No[...]


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'd[...]ne, C.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerset, Thomas


Elmley, Viscount
McKle, John Hamilton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. si[...] Ian
Soper, Richard


Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard
Makins, Brigad[...]er-General Ernest
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spens, William Patrick


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'[...])


Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Goldle, Noel B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Granville, Edgar
Moss, Captain H. J.
Touche, Gordon Co[...]mo


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Munro, Patrick
Tree, Ronald


Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Guest, Capt. Rt. Han. F. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
North, Edward T.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend>


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nunn, William
Wardlaw-M[...]ne, Sir John S.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanbury, Cecil
Ormsby-Gore, Rt Hon. William G.A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour[...]


Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson, William G.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Heneage, Li[...]ut -Colonel Arthur P.
Pike, Cecil F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Withers, Sir John James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Womersley, Sir Walter


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ray, Sir William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
R[...]id, David D. (County Down)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)



Hurst, Sir Gerald R.
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, c.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sir George Penny.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3. line 32, at the end, to insert:
(6) If any person knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining payment under this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
The Minister has indicated more than once during these Debates that in many ways this is a highly hazardous experiment and that everyone recognises that in it there are countless opportunities for all kinds of deception and fraud. Indeed, he has already told us that he will have
to make some very elaborate regulations to deal with the situation that will arise when the Bill comes into force, and in view of those circumstances, we feel that there should be proper penalties for any of that deceit or fraud that is likely to arise. It will be very easy, I imagine, for people skilled in raising stock and handling cattle to dodge the regulations that the Minister may make, and to escape the net that he may set for them. Consequently, when those people are doing that kind of thing and are receiving public money at the same time, we feel that they should be properly punished. We live in a very peculiar civilisation in some respects for buying and selling is the beginning and end of
existence for some people. We all know that in that process there is plenty of opportunity for fraud. The regulations which the Minister will draft will, he has told us, be necessarily elaborate, for they will have to meet a difficult situation. Let us be certain that they are sufficiently strong to deal with those who outwit the Minister. Clever as the right hon. Gentleman is, and adequate as the regulations will be from his point of view to deal with the situation, there are many clever people in the agricultural industry, some of whom will undoubtedly set out to outwit even the best regulations the Minister can devise. If they do, we ought to punish them adequately.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that his object was that there should be adequate penalties if false statements were made for the purpose of receiving money. We entirely agree with that proposition, but it so happens that because the false statements which are here involved are false statements for the purpose of receiving money, the law in England and Scotland already deals adequately with them. Indeed, it deals with them so adequately that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of imprisonment not exceeding three months is a mere shadow of what the law already lays down. The making of false statements for the purpose of receiving money is an extremely serious offence in the criminal legislation of all countries. In England the Larceny Act, 1916, in Scotland the False Oaths Act—which covers more than a formal oath and includes any false declaration made in regard to an Act of Parliament—together with the Common Law, deal adequately with the offence. So far as England is concerned, Section 32 of the Larceny Act enables a punishment of penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years to be given for making false statements for the purpose of receiving money. I do not think, therefore, that the very modest proposal of three months' imprisonment really adds to the strength of the deterrent legislation which the wisdom of Parliament has already imposed.

Mr. WILMOT: The statement which the Under-Secretary has made rather emphasises the value of the declaration
which I recommended on the last Amendment.

Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 4, line 5, at the end, to add:
(8) If after such sale and before such payment out of the Cattle Fund a producer of cattle shall die, or become subject to any legal disability, or shall have entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as if he was the producer of cattle for the purposes of the payment out of the Cattle Fund, and the payment may be made to him."—[Mr. Turton.]

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): It was not my intention to select this Amendment, because I regarded it as unnecessary, but I understand the hon. Member thinks he can make out a case to show that it is necessary, and I will therefore call upon him to move it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to add:
(8) If after such sale and before such payment out of the Cattle Fund a producer of cattle shall die, or become subject to any legal disability, or shall have entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as if he was the producer of cattle for the purposes of the payment out of the Cattle Fund, and the payment may be made to him.
The position which makes this Amendment necessary is due to Clause 5, which defines a producer of cattle as
a person whose business it is to keep Cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition.
In Clause 2 power is given for the payment of the advances out of the Cattle Fund to producers of cattle. My submission is that the position here is exactly the same as it was under the Wheat Act, where, owing to the definition of registered growers, we had to introduce a wider power so that the payments should be made not only to the registered grower but, in cases of insanity or legal disability, to his representative or the committee which is acting in place of the registered grower. I move the Amendment to enable that to be done in this
case. It is a technical point, but I think a point of some substance seeing that a great many farmers are very near bankruptcy. If that be the case and the trustees will not get the advantage of the subsidy, it is important to have this additional safeguard in the Bill. The wording of the Amendment is an exact replica of the wording in the Wheat Act, 1932, in Section 5, Sub-section (2, g). I move the Amendment merely because I felt that there was that lacuna in the Bill.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question, but in the circumstances of this Bill the Amendment is unnecessary. I am informed that once the certificate giving all the information about the animal and the sale is in the hands of the seller of the animal, his representatives will be able to receive the money from the Minister. My hon. Friend will recollect that the repayments under the Wheat Act were much more elaborately legislated about because that Act was for a minimum period of three years, whereas the payments with which we are dealing under this Bill last only a few months. Here we see no difficulty, for once the certificate is obtained, whatever happens to the receiver of the certificate, whether it be death, incapacity or anything else, there is no reason why his representatives should not have the payments that the Minister makes. I thought that my hon. Friend would perhaps raise the question of the rights of a receiver in bankruptcy to what, under the terms of the Bill, is a voluntary payment. I mention this in order to give the Committee the assurance that where there is a case of bankruptcy, if there be any doubt as to the actual legal right of the liquidator, as he is called in Scotland, to receive the money from the Minister, the legal position will not be taken advantage of by the Minister against the owner of the animal. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, particularly in view of the fact that this Bill is for a strictly limited period, and that we think the ground is sufficiently covered.

Mr. TURTON: May I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with the question of the payments to producers of cattle in Clause 2 and the definition of producers
of cattle in Clause 5? Surely that definition will cut out any trustee or committee.

Mr. SKELTON: As I understand my hon. Friend's difficulty, it is in the case of a producer who has received a certificate and becomes incapable of receiving the money. We are satisfied from the terms of this Bill and the powers of the Minister to pay that that difficulty does not arise, either in the case of a trustee or in the case of any other representative.

6.11 p.m.

Sir R. SMITH: Would not my hon. Friend's difficulty be got over if there were some wider definition than that in Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 5? It seems an extraordinary thing to limit the definition to a man who keeps cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition. If the cattle were not in an improved condition it would seem that the producer would not be entitled to the subsidy. If they should go down in value he would not be entitled to it. The definition says that he must be a man who keeps the cattle in an improved condition.

Mr. TURTON: On the assurance of the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.12 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I hope that the Labour party will vote against this Clause. This Government have found it remarkably easy to grant money to owners of industry, as they are doing in this Clause, and in no case, as far as I can remember, have they ever done anything to make sure that the workers will get their share of the money. We tried to amend this Clause so that something would be done to ensure that some of the money would go through to the workers, but we failed, as usual when we asked anything of that kind of this Government. It has been said that nearly £20,000,000 a year is given to agriculture, and the only statement we have had from supporters of the Government to-day is that since the National Government came into office there are one or two counties here and there in which there have been increases in wages. If the
workers had their proper share of the money that is being poured into agriculture, the wages increases would come to a much greater amount than the small amounts about which an hon. Member was boasting a few minutes ago. It has been said that the money which goes into an industry drains down eventually into the pockets of the workers. We do not agree. The Government too easily assume that that happens, but our experience in industry is unfortunately to the contrary. Agricultural workers and the workers in other industries get only as much as they can compel the owners of industry to give. They have to fight continuously in order to maintain what bit they have got, whether the Government give anything or not.
When the Government give anything to an industry they should represent the working classes as well as the owners of industry, and they should guarantee that the workers get their proper share of it. They never do it. They boast about the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and say that gives a guarantee of wages to the worker. It may be so, but that was not due to this Government or to the supporters of it. Hon. Members opposite did 'all they could to prevent even that much being given to the agricultural workers, but now they quote the Act as an excuse for saying that nothing further is necessary at the present time to ensure that the workers shall get some of the money which is being paid to the industry. We think it is as necessary to guarantee that the worker gets his share as to guarantee that the producer has his share, and it is because we have no such guarantee for the agricultural workers, whose wages 'are so low that they find it difficult to maintain a decent existence, that we shall vote against this Clause.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I would ask the Minister before fixing the date when the scheme is to come into operation to institute an inquiry into the matters which I mentioned on Second Reading. On that occasion I brought forward evidence of the wide gap between the price which the producer receives and the price which the urban consumer of beef has to pay. Whereas the producer is getting less than the pre-War price, the consumer is paying nearly double the pre-War price. I
asked the Minister whether he could give us any information as to the cause of this astonishing phenomenon, and whether it was a fact that somewhere between the producer and the consumer there existed a monopoly interest, it may be, levying a toll on the industry, and whether it was not possible to ensure the prosperity of the producer by closing the gap between the price obtained by the producer and the price charged to the consumer. I got no reply from him on that occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that point on this Clause.

Mr. WILMOT: I hope that I am not ontravening the Rules of order, but, as I see it, this Clause gives the Minister discretion in fixing the date upon which this scheme cornea into operation. That was the point to which I was addressing myself. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that before fixing the date he will institute an inquiry into this curious anomaly in this industry.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to debate that point. The Minister is charged with the duty of fixing the date, and it has to be a date before the 31st March, 1935.

Mr. WILMOT: With the greatest respect I ask your Ruling on this matter. Would it not be in order to ask the Minister to endeavour to get some information on these two curious matters before fixing the date?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think that is so. The hon. Member stated that he raised this question on Second Reading, and it was quite a proper question on that occasion. If he wants to raise it again he must find some other opportunity, for he cannot do it on this Clause.

Mr. WILMOT: Should I be entitled to indicate to the Minister that it is my view that without some such undertaking the Committee ought to vote against the Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: No, certainly not. That would be advancing reasons against the Bill, and would not be in order.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I recognise the force of the argument put forward by my hon. Friends on the other side, and par-
titularly by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), that it is most desirable that a fair share of these benefits should be obtained by the producers, and under the heading of "producers" we place the argicultural workers. It is also true to say that there is in existence statutory machinery for regulating wages and to point to the fact that the wages of agricultural workers have been maintained against a very sharp fall in the receipts for agricultural produce out of which the wages of the workers have to be paid. I cannot, however, go at length into these arguments without transgressing the Rules of Order. It is the admiration of all of us on this side to see how extremely skilful hon. Members opposite have been in, conducting a long Debate on agricultural wages, and a considerable Debate upon the gap in the prices received by the producer and the charges which have to be paid by the consumer, within the four corners of a Clause which can only cover those matters by a certain amount of bulging at the sides. But, in general, the Clause does cover the way in which the payments are to be made, and I hope that I have been able to explain, at least in a sketchy fashion, the scheme which we hope to lay before the House later. I ask the Committee to give attention to Sub-section (6) which says:
As soon as may be after they have approved any arrangement for the purposes of this Section the appropriate Ministers shall lay particulars of the arrangements before both Houses of Parliament.
and I would add that it is our hope, before the House rises, to give a fairly full indication of the sort of arrangements which we shall subsequently lay before Parliament. I hope that after this we may now have the Clause.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I am very glad to know that the House is to have further information on matters referred to in the earlier Sub-sections of this Clause dealing with the arrangements for the certification of animals and the like. That information will be necessary if we are to adjudicate upon the effectiveness of this machinery. Without going into the principles of the Bill, which, we had an opportunity of discussing on Second Reading, there are still one or two points of detail which I wish to raise. In the
first Sub-section "producers" are referred to more than once. The Minister has given us an assurance that a producer shall be a person who can be easily identified, and not easily impersonated by someone else, and in the information which he has promised us he will, no doubt, safeguard the position of the actual producer. There is, however, already a definition of producers in Clause 5, which we accept. It says there:
A person shall be taken to be a producer of cattle if he is a person whose business it is to keep cattle in the United Kingdom for the purpose of selling them in an improved condition.
I do not think that definition could be improved upon. Then we find that the producer is to get payments, and we are more or less content that the object of the Bill will be carried out without any possibility of evasion or deliberate effort to defeat the object of the Bill. We are not, however, enamoured of these proposals, and we believe they are very dangerous indeed, and it will be a condition of success that the regulations shall be drawn out as clearly as possible, so that everybody may know and understand them before the scheme is launched. I understand that I am denied the opportunity of questioning even the main principle, of the Clause at this stage, but I would like to call attention to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) which provides that meat is to be subsidised at the rate of ld. per lb. No doubt it is very convenient from the point of view of dealers and producers to express the subsidy in terms of hundredweights, as is done in that Sub-section, but the housewife realises the extent of this subsidy only when she is given it in terms of pence per lb. Here we are providing for a subsidy of ld. per lb. on the wholesale price, and we are extremely anxious that under the arrangements made by the Minister that ld. per lb. will not carry an additional penny before the meat reaches the retailer. I claim no monopoly of anxiety on that paint for hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite and the Minister himself must recognise the importance of not allowing the retail prices to be raised too high. If the producer is to get what may be called a. deficiency payment, a term which I do not like, and which is almost fatal to the success of this Bill, I hope the Minister will be very vigilant to see
that no advantage is taken of that to add yet further to the price of the beef in the market.
We are precluded now from dealing with the question of the levy and the means by which the subsidy is to be raised, but that will be decided when fresh legislation comes before the House. One point, however, to which I would like to draw attention is the omission from this Clause of any reference to the wages to be paid to agricultural workers. The Minister has expressed his admiration for the skill shown on this side of the House in bringing certain matters under review on this Clause, but he himself is always very careful to have two strings to his bow, and when one does not suit the arrow he tries the other. On this Clause he has two strings, and when number one failed he put in the other and came nearer to the target on the second shot. He first explained that any attempt to confirm the existing law in regard to agricultural wages by provisions in this Act would he too difficult. He suggested that it would be too complicated to make him responsible for deciding whether a producer was paying the proper wages or not. If he had in mind a rapidly moving queue of producers so eager to get subsidies from public money that no delay must be interposed, it was not a very reassuring prospect which he held out to us. I hope the money will not be paid out as quickly as that, and that there will be some sort of safeguard to prevent an improper use of the subsidy. I would point out to him in this connection that he has insisted on other safeguards. For example, no certificate for a subsidy is to be issued unless the animal comes up to a certain weight standard.
Then we come to Sub-section (3) which says that a certificate shall not be issued if it is shown that the animal is in a certain condition and might not properly be described as fit for slaughter and fit for consumption. The certificate is not to be granted unless the animal has been resident in this country—if that is the right term to use—for a period of three months. What is the difficulty? Suppose I want a certificate. I make an application for a certificate I have to satisfy the certifying officer first of all that the beast which I submit to his inspection is in a proper condition, that is
to say, that it has been properly fed and carries sufficient weight. Then I have to satisfy him that it is of a certain age and has resided for three months in the United Kingdom. How am I to do that? I must produce written evidence, and that is not the kind of thing which you can do in a rush such as the Minister described. It has to be shown that it is a naturalised British beast.
Why cannot the person who makes the application for a subsidy and who has to produce these separate pieces of evidence also produce a statement as to the wages paid to the people in his employment to show that he is a decent employer and worthy of assistance by the State? The Minister has not satisfied us on that point. We have an objection to the Clause. We do not wish to impair it; we submitted Amendments to improve it, in the hope that it would not have the effect which we expect from this kind of legislation. We have failed to improve the Clause, and we have been denied the opportunity of giving some protection to the wage earners in the industry. We shall, therefore, vote against the Clause.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I shall not do the same as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I shall not vote against the Clause; I shall vote in favour of it. I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to Sub-section (2). He proposes to pay a. sum not exceeding 5s. per cwt. in the case of a live animal and 9s. 4d. in the case of a dead animal. I am not an expert: I have not weighed an animal alive, killed it and then weighed it dead, but I am told that the ratio between liveweight and deadweight is not accurately or generally expressed in the ratio between 9⅓ and 5; in other words that if 5s. is right for a live animal, 9s. 4d. is too much for a dead animal. If that is so—I am advised that it is—the Clause definitely weights the subsidy in favour of it being paid on the dead animal. That seems to indicate a desire to stimulate the system of centralised slaughtering. I am not one who believes that on balance it is necessary to trustify or centralize everything. I am of opinion that the continued existence of a large number of small slaughter houses has substantial arguments in its favour. Hon. Members will be aware that there has been an active correspondence on this subject in
the "Times," in which the arguments have been stated pro and con. If it is desired at some time or another to establish a system of centralised slaughtering I think it ought to be proposed in a definite Measure for that purpose so that we know quite clearly what we are doing; it ought not to be attempted indirectly by certain Sub-sections of a Clause in the Bill which we are now considering.

Mr. ELLIOT: That is not our intention. Roughly speaking, the proportion represents the killing of about 54 per cent., which is not far from the average. So far as we could work it out, that was as nearly as possible holding the balance between the two methods of paying subsidy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to hear that it is not the intention, by a side-wind, to decide a separate issue of public policy. I think it only fair to tell the Minister that on Thursday I received a detailed memorandum, which I handed to another hon. Member who I thought was likely to speak, and in which there was a good deal of evidence that the percentage of 54 which the right hon. Gentleman has given, is by no means the average. I do not know what sources of information the Minister may have, but no doubt he has access to the very best sources. There is a substantial body of expert opinion which thinks that the proportion of dead weight to live weight is other than that which is indicated in the proportion chosen in the Bill. I hope the Minister will look into the point. I do not think that it interferes with the privileges of another place, and I hope that he will verify the information which has been supplied to him, and which is contrary to that which has been given to me.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: It is not laid down in the Bill that 1st September is the day on which the scheme comes into operation, but that the day shall be:
such day after the end of August.
I know the difficulties that Ministers have in preparing these very important schemes, but if there is not a definite date, we may get towards October before the scheme comes into full operation. I appeal to the Minister to realise the very great urgency of this problem, and to give an indication that, unless something
extraordinary happens, the scheme will come into full working not later than 1st September.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The most interesting thing in the Debate is the admission of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that he is not an expert in this matter. I am sure the Committee did not know there was anything in which the hon. Member was not expert. I want to ask the Minister a question which I endeavoured to raise on Clause 1, as to whether it is proposed to make any regulations in regard to deficiency payments. If this is to be a deficiency payment, will the subsidy or grant be made in the event of there being no deficiency? It is always a good argument that people, who, we may assume, are managing their industry or their part of the industry to the best of their ability, may fail to make a profit out of it, and that consequently many of them may have to go out of industry, which, being an essentially national one, might suffer. Are those who are making a good living out of the industry still to get a grant, to enable them to make still larger profits?
Does the Minister propose, in making regulations, to embody a clause laying down some rule that what we might call "excess profits" cannot be made by those in the industry taking public money when there is no need for it? Most people might be willing to subsidise those who are in a bad way through no fault of their own, and who are unable to get a reasonable living, but they would not give public money to people who did not need it because they were already doing very well. Is any such regulation to be made, or has it been discussed by the right hon. Gentleman with the officers of his Department? "Means test" is an expression which has frequently been used in connection with unemployment. I should like to know whether any means test is to be applied to the stock-raisers before they receive public money for which there may be no need at all.
My next point is by way of protest. It is somewhat extraordinary that the Minister will not enable people employed in the industry to be assured of a proper rate of wages. I cannot imagine any truth in his statement that there will be such a rush, and that people will be queueing up to get money so quickly, that it will not be pos-
sible to ensure that they are paying decent wages to their employées. The National Union of Agricultural Workers could tell the Minister the position probably within five minutes if he rang them up on the telephone. They could give a certificate in a very short time if it were required. I hope that the Minister will reconsider what appears to be his decision not to take any notice of the conditions of labour of the stock raisers who apply for grant under the Bill. Governments have for many years inserted a fair wages clause in contracts, and within the last few weeks I brought to the notice of a Minister a case where the clause was not observed, and the matter was put right. The Minister is making a very big contract with these people, to whom large sums of public money in the aggregate are to be given, and possibly considerable sums to the larger stock-raisers. It is not asking too much that people who apply for public money should give a guarantee such as is given by every contractor who gives service for the public money which he receives. The people who are to benefit under the Bill will get their money for nothing, and it is not unreasonable that they should observe as good conditions of labour for their employés as obtain with the ordinary contractors to the Government. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the point, and see if it would not he possible, in making the regulations, to insert some Clause that would assure workers in the industry of a decent standard of living.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: In a few minutes the Tory supporters of the National Government will be going into the Lobby to vote for this Clause. I wonder whether any of them have realised its full significance. While we have been discussing the regulations which are to be made with regard to fat stock under this Clause, I have been recalling how in bygone days Tories, in their propaganda, were never tired of picturing the day when Socialists would be in control of the Governmental machinery of this country, and used to tell people that if we were in control we should be regulating everything—that folks would be wearing the same sort of clothes, living in the same kind of houses, and everyone would have to go through a prescribed routine. But never in their wildest moments did they tell
the public that a Socialist Government would ever enact a Measure under which a Minister of Agriculture would lay clown regulations stating that the carcase of a cow must be dressed in accordance with those regulations, and that, before people in this country could have their Sunday joint, it would be necessary to count the teeth of the beasts that were killed for the purpose. It has been left for a National Government to carry regulations to those amazing lengths. How can the Tory supporters of the National Government, after all their denunciation, and the way in which they professed to describe the regulated society which they said Socialists would set up, go into the Lobby in support of the appalling regulations that are being brought forward by this National Government, prescribing in the minutest detail how carcases shall be dressed and how the joints shall be served?

6.48 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would ask the Minister if he would reconsider the question, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), of the regulation of the wages of the working people engaged in the industry. The, right hon. Gentleman's reply did not seem to me to meet the case which was put forward, and I would ask him to consider again whether, before public money is paid in this way, at least some form of guarantee could not be required oaf those to whom this public money is being granted should pay a particular wage to those engaged in the industry. It seems to me that, before this assistance is granted, the applicant for it should at least sign a declaration that be is paying a particular wage. That would have a two-fold effect. If it were found that he was not paying a proper wage, then, in addition to the ordinary criminal proceedings, there would be good ground for his being compelled to repay the sum to which he was not entitled. It seems impossible to ordinary folk, though it may not seem so to others who look at things in a different light, that the granting of millions of public money to people engaged in an industry—I am not discussing whether the industry is in a good way or in a bad way—cannot be accompanied by a simple definite guarantee that certain wages are paid to those who work in the industry.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I see in his place, will recollect that in connection with the housing subsidy I had considerable correspondence with him with regard to the subsidy that was being paid to certain people and the wages paid to the workpeople engaged. I say that, before public money is granted, a firm guarantee of this kind should be obtained from those who receive the money. It may well be that it would not be possible to make inquiry at every farm to see that every individual man is paid the proper wage, but at least it should be possible to get a similar guarantee to that which is obtained for Income Tax purposes. All that is required there is an affirmative declaration from the person concerned. Inquiries are not made, but, if it is found afterwards that that Affirmative declaration is wrong, the person concerned is liable to certain proceedings. Ill this case every applicant ought to be required to make an affirmative declaration that he is paying the proper rate of wages.
The other point that seems to me to be peculiar is that, while in other cases the Conservative party have denounced the granting of public money, and have said that whenever it was granted steps should be taken to see that only those who need it receive it, yet in this case those engaged in the industry are to receive a grant of public money quite apart from any question of need. The Minister may say that everyone in the industry is in need, but I have never thought that the claim could be put as high as that, and, unless he does put it as high as that, it seems to me that there ought to be some test. I shall vote against the Clause, but I wish the Minister, who has a logic born of the country from which he comes and which he represents in the House, would apply that logic to the argument that, while the Conservatives demand grim tests for poor people when they are receiving public money, no test is to be applied here, when public money out of the same public funds is being granted; and I would also ask him why it is beyond the power and ingenuity of his Department to require from the applicant at least a declaration that he is paying fair wages.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I apologise to the Committee for coming before them once more,
but it would perhaps be courteous if I say another word. I think that the point raised both by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) can be quite simply met. If any undue profit is made out of this payment, there is power in the Bill itself to make the payment less than the amount here laid down. We are advised, however, and I think it is common knowledge to everyone in the House who is engaged in the industry or has to review the results of the industry, that, at present prices, everyone engaged in the industry of raising meat is receiving less for that meat than the cost of its production. If prices rose to a point at which they could do without the subsidy, we should be only too glad. I think that that is the answer to both the points which have been raised.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether the applicant will be required to make any statement with regard to his financial position? Otherwise, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply the test?

Mr. ELLIOT: We propose to apply it by the general knowledge that we have of the circumstances of the industry and the cost of raising meat. Surely that meets the point fully. If undue profits are going to be made, it will be possible to reduce the payment. As to how we know the cost of raising meat, we get that knowledge, not from the costs of one man, but from the costs of the many hundreds, and, indeed, thousands, of producers to whom we have access at the present moment. As to the question why we should not take further precautions to secure the enforcement of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, I say again that the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, is a separate Statute which fully covers the question of wages, and for the purpose of which I have appointed additional inspectors. That Statute is operated in its own way. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), whether 1 should not make inquiry into the costs of distribution before fixing the appointed day, clearly it would be out of the question for me to do that. The costs of distribution are a long business. We have had evidence from the co-operative societies that the costs of distribution of butcher's meat are by no means excessive, and the danger is that,
while we are working out these small points, the industry itself may collapse. It would clearly be impossible, and I am sure that the hon. Member would not desire it, that, for the sake of carrying out yet another inquiry, I should stop deal-

ing with the whole problem for the purpose of dealing with which the House passed the Financial Resolution.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 51.

Division No. 345.]
AYES.
[6.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Magnay, Thomas


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Maitland, Adam


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, Sir Richard James


Ba[...]ie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moss, Captain H. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Munro, Patrick


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Goff, Sir Park
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bernays, Robert
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Blindell, James
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
North, Edward T.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nunn, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Grimston, R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pearson, William G,


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newby)
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pike, Cecil F.


Burnett, John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hartland, George A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cadogan, Hon Edward
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Carver, Major William H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ray, Sir William


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Cheater, City)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hornby, Frank
Remer, John R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Runge, Norah Cecil


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Conant, R. J. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooke, Douglas
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Courlauld, Major John Sewell
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, Samuel Servington


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Selley, Harry R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Sir Robert (Ah'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Somerset, Thomas


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dickle, John P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, Ann[...]sley A. (Windsor)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Soper. Richard


Drewe, Cedric
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duckworth, George A. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McKie, John Hamilton
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Spens, William Patrick
Tree, Ronald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Storey, Samuel
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Summersby, Charles H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wayland, Sir William A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour



Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wells, Sydney Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Weymouth, Viscount
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
and Maior George Davies.


Train, John
Whyte, Jardine Bell



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Groves, Thomas E.
Paling, Wilfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfieid, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Moran (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Galsgow, Govan)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallal[...]eu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Resolution agreed to.

Clause 3 (Marking of imported cattle,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(The Cattle Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.7 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions on this Clause. Sub-section (1) refers to the appointment of a committee to be known as the Cattle Committee, and then, according to Sub-section (2),
The appropriate Ministers may appoint a secretary to the Cattle Committee, and the committee may employ such officers, agents and servants as those Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.
I suppose that it is almost impossible for the Minister to say with any degree of accuracy how many people are likely to be employed, but, even so, before going into a matter of this description, a Department generally does try to get some idea of how many people ate likely to be employed, and I think that it would be a great advantage if the Minister could give us some information on this question. One last word. It does appear to me very curious that this party, which has always been accused of being the party which supports bureaucracy and of
having officials by the thousand and score of thousands, which has been accused of creating officials in order to cure unemployment, should now be faced by a National Government which is creating officials much faster. What is more to the point is that it is not creating officials for some constructive effort, but in order to pay those officials to pay more Government money out of the public purse. We cannot stop them from paying that money, but we should like to know how many more people are to be employed in order to pay this subsidy.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: Clearly it would not be possible at this moment, when we are merely framing the proposals, to indicate to the Committee the number of persons whom we may have to employ. It is our desire to keep the number as low as possible, and we have taken steps to ensure that they are to be paid out of the Cattle Fund itself, so that the possibility of recovery which applies to other sections of the expenditure, applies here also. If it were desired that I should place the whole scheme before the Committee, I could not do anything before the new Session. We are faced here with the fact that we have to take swift action, and therefore I beg the hon. Gentleman not to press me on this point, because I shall inform the House as soon as ever it
is possible to do so. Of course, the House will be informed when the money comes to be voted on the Supplementary Estimate, and it will then be informed what the administrative cost will he. As to the other point about the appointment of officials, I am afraid that the difference between my hon. Friend and myself is just the point which he stated. He arraigned us for not appointing officials to carry on the industry. We do not believe that an industry carried on by officials would be a good thing, but it does seem to us to be a good thing, both from the point of view of the country and that of the Exchequer, that an industry should be supervised in this way, given temporary assistance and helped by a proper quota to raise prices.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is the most extraordinary that has been given in this House or Committee for a very long time. He tells the Committee that it is far better to have a body of officials appointed for the purpose of distributing a subsidy to the unfortunate farmers than it would be to have a body of officials helping and guiding the industry so as to make a real success of it. It really is a most extraordinary reply.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is not what I said.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should hate to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but that was my interpretation of what he said: That it is far better to have a body of officials—very efficient ones—distributing this relief than to have a body of officials guiding the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Running!"] I know the difference between running the industry and guiding it. No hon. or right hon. Member could have justified with the same skill this £3,000,000 subsidy as the Minister himself has done. He has proved to this House over and over again the absolute inevitability of coming forward at once with financial assistance for this industry for a very definite period. I do not charge the farmers with having mismanaged their business. It may be that financial complications, the banks, or half a dozen factors may have had something to do with the livestock depression. The fact is that the industry cannot pay its way at the moment, and because of that the Government are pro-
posing to assist it to the extent of £3,000,000. That may all be justified. If votes count for anything, the House has justified this proposal. But surely even the right hon. Gentleman would not argue that it is preferable to establish a body of officials to pay out a subsidy rather than to establish a body of officials to help to organise efficiently production, marketing, and slaughtering of livestock in this country.
It seems to me that while perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us how many officials are to be created, he might tell the Committee whether or not this is to be on the lines of the Milk Board, under which the country has been divided into areas for the purpose of administering the scheme, and whether or not each area is to be guided by a central body to be established by the Minister. If the Minister has made up his mind that the money must be administered efficiently, so that there shall be no person receiving money twice, and so on, then he should have made up his mind approximately into how many areas the country will be divided for the purpose of administering the scheme, and if the Committee knew that, they could apply their minds to the potential number of servants, officers and agents who would be required, and approximately the total cost of the administrative service. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the Committee into his confidence to that extent in order to ensure that there shall be as few loopholes as possible and that the scheme will be administered on appropriate lines satisfactory both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. We ought, further, to ask him this: In administering the scheme there will be a good deal of information forthcoming to those responsible on the question of slaughtering. We want to know whether the officials who will be administering the fund will also be charged with the duty of advising the Minister as to how best cattle may be slaughtered. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the Committee into his confidence on these material points before the Clause is passed.

7.17 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman's statement about the administration to carry out the distribution of this largesse was really rather
alarming. He said swift action was necessary. He apparently desired to give the impression that this crisis came like a thief in the night and caught him unprepared. I was under the impression that the country had long been conscious of a depression and that the right hon. Gentleman had been racking his brains to find a solution for months past. If we are to believe the newspapers, he has been wrestling with the problem for the last six months. Now he says he has no scheme. He has thought out no details. Re does not know what it will cost. He does not know the size of the staff. He does not know whether it will be a small or a big organisation. He cannot even tell the Committee the character of the officials who will do the job. During the War the Government took over the supplying of beef, when everything had to be done through the Ministry of Agriculture, and I have a vivid recollection that a very elaborate organisation was built up. Local auctioneers and agents were used for the purpose.
We have a right to know—especially the agricultural Members—what kind of organisation the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. He does not think his scheme will be ready before the Adjournment and we are to wait till next Session before he can tell us what organisation is to be set up. I understood from hon. Members opposite that the whole thing was to be at work by the end of next month. The latest date was to be 1st September. The right hon. Gentleman is embarking on the scheme without being in a position to tell the Committee what it will cost and how many men will be employed. I really do not think he is treating the Committee fairly or squarely. I am very glad to see at last the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the dim background. He ought to have been in the forefront of the battle. ft is his funeral. He will have to pay the bill, though it does not matter what the cost is, because it is to come out of the subsidy. It is rather hard on the farmers that a large percentage of the money is to be frittered away on officials.
There is a very bitter feeling among farmers all through the country at the cumbersome, elaborate organisation set up at Thames House by the Milk Board. Are we to have another Milk Board? Are we to have all these typewriters and
mechanical machines to calculate the cheques that are to be paid out? Is it to be centralised or localised? Is another building to be taken for the purpose This Parliament came into being largely for the purpose of economy. Rightly or wrongly, the country was under the impression that there was a financial crisis, and it was necessary to keep a tighter control over public expenditure, and particularly over the multiplication of officials, but the Minister comes forward week by week with another scheme. It may be necessary. It may be that, owing to the general world depression in prices, it is necessary to give subsidies, but the right hon. Gentleman should think out his scheme in advance. Is it to be done by counties or through London? If it is to be done through London, does it mean the establishment of a central machine through which all the money is to go, like the Milk Board? I prefer localisation.
All these central boards are playing into the hands of hon. Members above the Gangway. The Prime Minister invented the phrase, "the inevitability of gradualness." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was a very skilful phrase. Hon. Members above the Gangway are enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's experiment in Socialism. It has all the kind of machinery which is the inevitable objection to any centralised organisation. This is the distribution of public funds to favoured individuals. The right hon. Gentleman comes here, with the Financial Secretary merely as a passenger, and tells us solemnly that he has not yet made up his mind how the money is to be doled out, how many and what kind of officials are to be appointed, and what they are to cost, and he cannot tell us till next Session when the money is to be handed out next month. If this is business by a business Department, I do not know how it is going to end. We are sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. We realise that he has so many irons in the fire that it is inevitable that he should burn his fingers. I hope that he will take us into his confidence before we part with the Clause. He must have something in his mind, and we are entitled to know what it is.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet has asked me a number of questions on be-
half of the distressed agriculturists of Bethnal Green. This agricultural idea went to his head to such an extent that he totally failed to read the Clause that he was criticising. May I direct his attention to it? He does not appear to have a copy of the Bill. Perhaps he could borrow one from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason). He does not seem to have one either.

Mr. MASON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Bill and answer my hon. Friend's criticisms.

Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had read the Clause, he himself could have answered in advance all the criticisms that the hon. Member has just made.

Sir P. HARRIS: I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he stated that he could not give us the information till the next Session of Parliament and that he could not tell us how many officials are to be appointed.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Baronet was able to answer my speech because he had not read the Clause. If I read it, it, will perhaps shorten the discussion:
The appropriate Ministers shall appoint a Committee … whose duty it shall be to advise those Ministers … and to prepare and submit to those Ministers particulars of such arrangements as are mentioned in Section two of this Act.
The hon. Baronet now splits the welkin in his denunciation of me, because 1 cannot give him the information in advance of the provisions of the Clause. If he had read the Clause, he would have said I was proposing to appoint a committee but that it was only camouflage. It was skilful of him to reply to me before he bad read the Clause. We ask the Committee to approve a Clause drawn up in careful and specific terms in which Ministers are to appoint a committee, and the committee is to submit to them particulars of the arrangements mentioned in Clause 2. In those circumstances, it would clearly be premature, and it would not be carrying out the simple purpose of the Clause, if I were to lay down what the arrangements and the organisation were to be, and to say whether it was to be a regional or a county organisation, whether it was to be done through London, whether type-
writers were to be purchased, and whether the offices were to be in Thames House.
The hon. Baronet wanted to know a great deal. I refer him to the simple words of the Clause that he was criticising. If I had appointed a committee without the consent of the House, or if I had submitted to the Committee particulars of the arrangements which I am directed by the Clause to receive from the committee, no one would have been louder in his denunciations than the hon. Baronet. I beg hon. Members to adhere to the criticism of the Clause itself. Shall there be a Cattle Committee? I ask the Committee to say there shall. Shall the Cattle Committee prepare and submit to us arrangements? I beg the Committee to say that it shall. Will the committee have officers, agents and servants? It will, and they will be paid, not by the Ministers alone, but by Ministers with the approval of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman was very sarcastic about the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and suggested that he was a mere passenger on this bench. Let me assure him that in the words
The appropriate Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Cattle Committee, and the Committee may employ such officers, agents and servants as those Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine 
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has secured all that he wants and does not need to be a passenger on this Bench. He is the gaoler of the people who are in the prison van. Surely, the proposals are simple. They are businesslike. They have to be put through, once the Committee approves of the Clause and indeed of the Bill which we are now asking them to pass. I suggest that the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has invented some of those questions, and he will find the best answer in the simple statement that this Bill deals with an emergency. The emergency is not because we have not considered these matters which he has suggested to the House. The emergency is because we are waiving our undoubted right to impose heavy restrictions upon imports into this country and on that account only, and, having decided to waive what everybody admits to be our legal right to impose restrictions on imports into this country, we are acting at short notice to
find another way of meeting the problem upon which we have been working for the last six months, and, indeed, for the last 18 months. It is that which produces the necessity for short-term legislation, and in reproaching us for that hon. Members below the Gangway, who, in season and out of season, press these considerations upon us, are, I submit, making a totally unworthy use of a genuine attempt by the Government to make the least interference with trade as possible. On both these grounds, I hope that the Committee will allow us now to have the Clause.

Clauses 5 (Interpretation, and provisions as to orders and regulations and as to accounts of Cattle Fund) and 6 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services, 1932, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet
Services.
10,800
15
2
—
—
1,723
5
11


2
Victualling and Clothing
—
52,467
11
11
145,836
5
10
—


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
—
951
11
6
20,422
19
2
—


4
Fleet Air Arm
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Services
—
—
8,187
10
8
2,770
3
9


6
Scientific Services
—
7,179
4
5
27,830
13
9
—


7
Royal Naval Reserves
—
225
8
7
3,673
15
6
—


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:















Sec. 1. Personnel
—
—
56,935
18
2
5,332
15
0



Sec. 2. Matériel
—
165,881
9
6
439,846
9
2
—



Sec. 3. Contract Work
232,028
17
2
3,819
14
10
—
—


9
Naval Armaments
—
60,476
13
8
229,791
2
2
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs
62,998
10
0
65,451
11
5
—
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
67,936
17
11
11,284
0
3


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
17,866
3
9
252
5
2


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
35,734
2
9
—
—
3,814
17
11


14
Non- Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
19,811
10
8
—
—
5,757
11
1


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowance, and Gratuities.
17,093
6
5
40
4
7
—
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
2,455
4
11
—
—
—




380,922
7
1
356,493
10
5
1,018,327
16
1
30,934
19
1




Total Deficits
£737,415
17
6
Total Surpluses
£1,049,262
15
2




Net Surplus £311,846 17 8

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1932.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DTENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £311,846 17s. 8d, namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
1,049,262
15
2


Total Deficits
737,415
17
6


Net Surplus
£311,846
17
8

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

Resolved,
That the application of such sums he sanctioned."—[Mr. Ruff Cooper.]
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £509,761 3s. 2d., namely:

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Army Services 1932, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
2,672
5
9
—
—
33,222
13
9


2
Territorial Army and reserve Forces.
—
6,337
4
4
55,429
7
3
—


3
Medical Services
—
3,170
3
1
21,296
3
1
—


4
Educational Establishments
22,380
5
1
11,066
19
5
—
—


5
Quartering and Movements
—
—
28,153
18
9
55,810
4
3


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
—
33,935
11
3
241,926
19
9
—


7
Clothing
—
43,011
16
4
61,265
8
5
—


8
General Stores
—
39,886
8
7
132,806
12
5
—


9
Warlike Stores
—
152,008
18
11
49,478
19
0
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands
23,079
15
0
—
—
1,086
10
9


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
2,004
3
0
4,971
18
5
—
—


12
War Office
—
—
10,991
5
4
763
7
2


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
9,153
6
5
51,930
3
5
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers,
Men, and others.
—
—
60,914
7
10
68,061
15
11


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
7,254
2
2
—
—
93
10
11


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
2,537
7
1
—
—
—




59,927
18
1
303,542
6
9
714,193
5
3
159,033
2
9




Total Deficits
£303,470
4
10
Total Surpluses
£873,231
8
0




Net Surplus £509,761 3 2

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

7.37 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: We are saving here a fairly large sum of money, nearly £1,000,000, to the Treasury, and there are two or three items on which I should like to ask questions of the Minister. I see under the heading of

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
873,231
8
0


Total Deficits
363,470
4
10


Net Surplus
£509,761
3
2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

Vote 6, "Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts," nearly £242,000 unspent. Are we to understand that, owing to the strength of the Army for the year being considerably less than the authorised establishment, there has been less money spent on supplies? On Vote 8, "General Stores," £132,000 has been underspent, chiefly, I understand, in respect of clothing. Is that also due to the strength of the Army in 1932 being less than the
authorised establishment? There is one other item which I confess I do not understand, and, if the Minister can give an explanation, I shall be very glad. Under Vote 9, "Warlike Stores," there is an item of £152,000 in the deficiency column. Does that mean that that amount has been overspent? These are the three chief items in this statement of expenditure, and it would be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister could kindly give us an explanation.

7.39 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I want also to ask a question about the Territorial Army and Reserve Forces. I am not sure, from the form in which this return is presented, whether there has been an actual surplus over the estimated expenditure under this heading. If there has been, I would venture, as a member of the Territorial Association, to put in a strong plea to the Minister, which, I think, would be supported by the Council of the Territorial Association, that that money should be given to the Territorial Forces. The Minister will be aware that for a long time the Council of the Territorial Association has been pressing for certain expenditure which the Army Council have not thought it possible to authorise. I wish to put in a sympathetic plea on their behalf.

The CHAIRMAN: That will be out of order here, as this is expenditure which is past and done with.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry

7.40 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I think that I can answer the question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation). In fact, if he had taken the trouble to obtain a copy of the Army Appropriation Accounts, 1932, from the Vote Office he would have seen answers given to all his questions. He asked me about Vote 6, "Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts." The best thing I can do is to read the explanation given in the Notes in this particular publication. As far as A and B are concerned, that is "Provisions and Forage and Allowances in lieu," prices were lower than were estimated, and, therefore, that is the reason why we have a surplus there. As far as "Petrol and Lubricants" are concerned, there was
an over-estimate of requirements partly offset by a rise in the price of petrol.
With regard to F, "Appropriations-in-Aid connected with Sub-heads A to E," this publication says:
Purchases by the Navy and the Air Force were less and at lower price levels than estimated.
With regard to G, "Hired Road Transport," it says:
The requirements of hired transport in Palestine were over-estimated.
As to H, "R.A.S.C. Mechanical Transport," it was
due to abnormal maintenance requirements,
that we had a deficit. On J, "Subsidies for Mechanical Transport," there was a surplus because
the number of vehicles enrolled under the scheme was smaller than estimated.
That is the only reason that there has been any change in that particular Vote.

Brigadier-General NATION: It is on no account due to the fall in the strength of the Army for that year? That is the only assurance that I wish to obtain.

Mr. HACKING: I can give that assurance. The only reasons for the change are those which I have given to my hon. and gallant Friend. Does he want to know about other Votes?

Brigadier-General NATION: I should like an explanation of Vote 9, "Warlike stores."

Mr. HACKING: There there was a surplus of £49,201, due to delays in manufactures.

Brigadier-General NATION: What about the deficiency of £152,000?

Mr. HACKING: The explanation of the deficit of £152,009 of actual, as compared with estimated receipts, is that the details of the estimated and the actual appropriations-in-aid on the two items of Vote 9 are printed on page 19 of the Account. The deficit on Item 1 of £23,174 was due to a smaller amount of proof and experimental work being carried out for the Admiralty, and the deficit on Item 2 of £128,835 was due to the demands for issues from the Dominions and Colonies being less than the Estimate. That was the reason for the difference.

Earl WINTERTON: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to explain how the surplus shown in the last column
but one in the Schedule on the Order Paper relating to Vote 2 arose?

Mr. HACKING: Is my Noble Friend referring to this publication?

Earl WINTERTON: I am referring to Vote 2, "Territorial Army and Re serve Forces," where there is a surplus actually estimated over gross expenditure.

Mr. HACKING: What amount is that?

Earl WINTERTON: On the printed paper it says the amount is £55,429 7s. 3d.

Mr. HACKING: I regret that I have not the details here this evening, but if the Noble Lord will put a question tomorrow on the Report stage I shall be glad to reply.

Earl WINTERTON: I willingly agree to that suggestion, but I would point out that this is a very ancient opportunity of raising this question, and it is a common practice to ask questions. The Report stage does not offer the same opportunity as the present stage, because an hon.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Air Services, 1932, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
—
6,974
6
5
70,117
8
4
—


2
Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.
—
15,207
9
9
134,420
10
9
—


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
—
16,741
2
6
14,737
17
11
—


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands
—
4,718
15
5
131,183
12
9
—


5
Medical Services
—
—
6,140
0
2
2,661
15
9


6
Technical Training and Educational Services.
—
171
3
9
4,650
4
0
—


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
5,950
9
3
31
2
9
—
—


8
Civil Aviation
6,313
9
1
—
—
17,008
5
11


9
Meteorological Services
—
528
17
0
8,526
19
4
—



Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
10,466
10
3
413
4
8


10
Air Ministry
—
—
6,421
10
4
1,022
1
4


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
9,555
9
0
—
—
1,300
17
6


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
249
12
5
—
—
—




22,068
19
9
44,372
17
7
386,664
13
10
22,406
5
2




Total Deficits
£66,441
17
4
Total Surpluses
£409,070
19
0




Net Surplus £342,629 1 8


Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Member can speak only once. However, I agree to the course suggested.

£
s.
d


Total Surpluses
409,070
19
0


Total Deficits
66,441
17
4


Net Surplus
£342,629
1
8

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

WHALING INDUSTRY (LICENCES).

Resolution reported,
That, under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for a Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters, such fees as may be prescribed by the licensing authority under the said Act shall be charged in respect of the grant of licences authorising the use of ships and factories for taking and treating whales, being fees which do not exceed—

(a) two hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships or factories for treating whales; or
(b) one hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships for taking whales"

WHALING INDUSTRY (PAYMENT OF FEES AND FINES INTO EXCHEQUER).

Resolution reported,
That there shall be paid into the Exchequer—

(a) all fees received under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters by the licensing authority under that Act or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade; and
(b) all fines recovered by virtue of the said Act."

WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, to prohibit the taking or treating of whales within the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act by the licensing authority thereunder or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade (including' sums required to pay the remuneration and expenses of whale fishery inspectors acting in pursuance of that Act).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Lambert Ward.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes before Eight o'Clock.